Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aberdeen Corporation (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Riley: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that in accordance with the British plan for the evacuation of foreign volunteers from Spain the Barcelona Government has evacuated such volunteers from the Government territory, whether he will continue to urge the Italian Government, which is a signatory to the British formula, to withdraw all Italian combatants from the rebel forces in Spain?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): His Majesty's Government attach great importance to the withdrawal of all foreign volunteers from Spain, and they will leave nothing undone which may contribute to this end.

Mr. Riley: In view of the fact that the Italian Government have accepted the British formula for the withdrawal of troops, why have those troops not been withdrawn by the Italian Government?

Mr. Butler: Because the plan has not yet come into operation.

Mr. Noel-Baker: When the hon. Member says that the Government will leave nothing undone, does he mean that they

have made any representations in Rome since the Agreement was brought into force?

Mr. Butler: I think Rome is well aware of our views on the desirability of the withdrawal of volunteers from both sides.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Do the Italian Government take any notice?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does that mean that no representations have been made?

Mr. Butler: I should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister the number of persons of British nationality who have been reported by the British Agent at Burgos as still being held as prisoners of war by General Franco's administration?

Mr. Butler: According to the latest figures received, which were issued on 29th October last, the number of United Kingdom nationals is 86, and of Canadian nationals 34.

Mr. Day: Will a list of the names and addresses of these persons be published?

Mr. Butler: I do not think it will be necessary to publish one, but I can probably get one for the hon. Member if he so desires. I only hope it will be possible for them to be released shortly.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say when they will be released, and what the Government are doing?

Mr. Butler: I hope they will be released very soon.

Mr. George Griffiths: Are the Irish Free State people included in "British"?

Mr. Butler: I will investigate that, and inform the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether the British prisoners held by General Franco have now been released?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. But the British Agent at Burgos has reported that he has taken further steps to expedite the conclusion of the exchange arrangements, and that he hopes that the release of these men may shortly be expected.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the fact that the International Brigade has been completely withdrawn from Government Spain, surely these men ought to be released without an exchange of prisoners?

Mr. Butler: The two steps are not necessarily connected. In any case, we are pressing ahead rapidly with the necessary negotiations for the exchange of these prisoners.

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Member aware of the very bad conditions in the Franco prisons, and, consequently, the need for early release?

Mr. Butler: We have had opportunities to investigate the conditions in the prisons, and we are making further inquiries on the subject.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will these men, when they come back to this country, be prosecuted, in view of the offence under the Act they have committed?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Howard Gritten: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have warned ships trading to Government Spain that they enter ports within the war zone at their own risk; and whether an explanation has been given of the reasons which prevent His Majesty's ships from entering territorial waters to protect British merchantmen?

Mr. Butler: Detailed warnings regarding the dangers to navigation to be encountered by ships entering Spanish Government ports are issued periodically by the Board of Trade. In addition to this, it has frequently been stated by members of the Government that ships trading with ports in the war zone must accept the risks which inevitably result from the existence of a state of war. As regards the last part of the question, the Government have always made clear their view that effective protection cannot be guaranteed within territorial waters unless this country is prepared to take an active part in the hostilities.

Mr. Shinwell: If, in spite of the Government's warning, British seamen continue to trade with Republican Spain, does it not show that they maintain the traditions of the Mercantile Marine, and that they are showng much more courage than the Government?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not accord belligerent rights to General Franco except as may be agreed by all the Governments represented on the Non-Intervention Committee?

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that it is still the intention of His Majesty's Government to refuse to grant belligerent rights to General Franco until the Italian troops have been withdrawn proportionately to those on the Republican side?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 21st November to the hon. Members for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) and East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby).

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that all the countries who are represented on the Non-Intervention Committee are parties to the agreement laying down the conditions under which belligerent rights may be given, should not all these countries be consulted before any modification is agreed to and put into force dealing with belligerency?

Mr. Butler: In stating our view on the question we have always said that it is a matter for the Committee as a whole.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that this question of belligerent rights will not be discussed with Signor Mussolini when the Prime, Minister visits Italy?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it will not be discussed?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I cannot give any assurance.

Mr. H. G. Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this or any other country has power to grant belligerent rights? Do not belligerent rights arise out of a question of fact, namely, a state of belligerency?

Miss Wilkinson: Can we have an assurance that the question of belligerent rights in Spain is not going to be one of the counters to be given away in return for the illusory promises regarding Tunis?

Mr. Pritt: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the agenda for discussion will be drawn up in Rome or in London?

Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: rose.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister what countries have been approached by His Majesty's Government for the purpose of taking part in a general attempt at mediation in the Spanish conflict?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have at various times been in touch with the French and Italian Governments in regard to the possibility of bringing about the suspension of hostilities.

Mr. Davidson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether these attempts at mediation have been delayed or held back by the desire of the Government for a General Franco victory?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Loftus: Will my hon. Friend consider making representations to the Republics in South America to consider mediation?

Mr. Butler: If we thought there was likely to be a successful outcome of such representations, we should certainly not eliminate such a possibility.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Prime Minister the total number of prisoners released by the Spanish Government since the establishment of the British Commission; and what number of such prisoners were Italian?

Mr. Butler: Complete figures have not been received, but reports show that since the end of August 147 Spanish refugees in the Cuban Embassy at Madrid and 97 Italian prisoners have been released.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what information he has concerning the arrival in Spain during the last four weeks of Italian troops and war material in preparation for a new offensive against Catalonia?

Mr. Pritt: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the assembling of troops and material for the proposed new offensive by the rebels against the Government forces in Spain; whether any Italian troops, artillery, or aeroplanes are involved; and whether any of the reports received by him recently indicate whether

any Italian troops, artillery, or aeroplanes have arrived in the territory occupied by the rebels in the last three months?

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Prime Minister what information he has received regarding the Italian troops sent recently to Spain?

Mr. Butler: As regards Italian assistance to General Franco, I have nothing to add to the reply given on 28th November to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). I cannot take the responsibility of making a statement about the military dispositions of either side in Spain.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the pledges given by the Italian Government at the time the Treaty was brought into force, will His Majesty's Government call for special reports from the 30 or more British consuls and agents in Franco Spain and other agents there as to whether new Italian material has been arriving since that Treaty was brought into force?

Mr. Butler: As I say, we are always getting reports from our representatives in Spain and in other countries, but I cannot give an undertaking as to any further initiative in this matter.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that the assent of this House to the coming into force of the Treaty was based on the very definite pledges which he gave to the House?

Mr. G. Strauss: In view of the admission in the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave me on 28th November that material had been arriving from Italy during the last two months, what action are His Majesty's Government going to take?

Mr. Butler: The House will realise the position in which I am placed. We do not deny that there has been a certain measure of assistance from Italian sources, but I would not like it to be thought that in personnel it has amounted to more than replacements. Certainly it does not amount to any increase in the personnel of Italian troops.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that any increase at all, whether it is very much or whether it is a little, is against the pledge which


was given to this House; and are His Majesty's Government quite indifferent as to whether this pledge is kept or not?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, we are not indifferent as to whether this pledge is kept or not. We regard it as very important. The House must not accept the information I have given as meaning that there has been an increase of Italian forces in Spain.

Mr. Benn: Does the Prime Minister realise that unwillingly he has misled the House in this matter, and what is he going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Pritt: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has just stated that these pledges have been repeatedly broken, he really thinks that any useful purpose can be served, or that the interests of this country can possibly be assisted, by his going to Rome to hold conversations with Signor Mussolini?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member has not correctly repeated the statement of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is wholly misinformed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept my assurance.

Miss Wilkinson: As my question was one of those answered en bloc, I beg to give notice that, owing to the completely unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment on the first opportunity.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish as a White Paper the note recently addressed by the Spanish Government to His Majesty's Government on the subject of General Franco's campaign of air bombardment of the civilian population, together with the text of His Majesty's Government's reply?

Mr. Butler: The note from the Spanish Government is still being examined and no reply has yet been sent. My Noble Friend, therefore, considers it premature to take any decision about publication.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that many of these places that are being bombed have no military significance, will

His Majesty's Government make an immediate protest to General Franco against such bombing?

Mr. Butler: As I have said in my original answer, the Spanish Government note is being considered, and it is, therefore, premature to decide about publication.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is it not a fact that the numbers of the killed and wounded in the bombing in Spain are much less than the numbers killed on the roads in England every year? Will the Opposition concentrate on that?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet been officially informed of the future intentions of Japan in China as to foreign capital investments in all enterprises considered essential to defence or economically necessary to Japan?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the British Ambassador at Tokyo recently had information from the Japanese Foreign Office on this point?

Mr. Butler: We have received no official announcement.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that the Ambassador has been asked for a report?

Mr. Butler: We are naturally fully informed by the Ambassador on all that he is told by the Japanese Government. I am asked here whether we have had any official information. We have not.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the new Japanese official pronouncement on the closing of the open door in China; whether the British Government have received official intimation on the subject; and whether, in that case, he can make any statement?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has seen no such official pronouncement nor has he received any official intimation on the subject. I have, therefore, nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton) on 12th December.

Mr. Bellenger: In spite of the fact that the Government have received no official information, is the open door in China, in fact, being closed to this country's trade?

Mr. Butler: I made clear our view in my answer to the hon. Member for Bury, to which I have referred the hon. Member.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Has the hon. Member not read the "Times"?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether any communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government relative to the revision of the Nine-Power Treaty?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister what communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government concerning the revision of the Nine-Power Pact?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton) on 12th December.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that Japan, with or without notice, is going to revise the Nine-Power Treaty and completely close the door in China?

Mr. Butler: As I have stated before, we cannot recognise any alteration in the position as defined in this Treaty which is brought about unilaterally.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not a fact that the Treaty is being revised without notice, just as the war in China was started without notice? The Treaty is being revised. Is the Minister not aware of it?

Mr. Butler: I am fully aware of the difficulties of the position in the Far East, which are under our constant review. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept the assurance in the answer I have already given.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on the steps taken by the League of Nations in response to the request made by the Chinese Government for the re-engagement of the expert on co-operative societies whose contract, owing to the conditions ruling in China, had been terminated before he had completed his task?

Mr. Butler: The proposals of the Chinese Government which have been agreed to by the League include the reappointment of the expert on co-operatives previously under contract to the Chinese Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Mr. Lathan: asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to bring suggested schemes for the settlement of refugees before the Inter-Governmental Committee for discussion; and whether he has taken steps to bring such schemes before the countries of possible settlement, in particular the British Dominions?

Mr. Butler: The information regarding possible schemes of settlement in the Colonial Empire, contained in the statement made by the Prime Minister on 21st November, has been circulated to all members of the Inter-Governmental Committee. All those Dominion Governments, and the Governments of other countries of possible settlement, which are represented on the Committee will thus have received the information in question. As regards schemes affecting other countries, the Director of the Inter-Governmental Committee is entrusted with the task of approaching the Governments of the countries of refuge and settlement with a view to developing opportunities for permanent settlement. In the execution of this task he will doubtless take up with the Governments concerned any schemes which on examination appear to him to be suitable.

Mr. David Grenfell: Have His Majesty's Government made a definite announcement, or will they make a definite announcement, that they will provide adequate finance for the settlement of these refugees in the Dominions when they come?

Mr. Butler: That raises a broader question, which, I think, affects the Dominions Office.

Mr. Lathan: Am I to gather that proposals in connection with the scheme have been brought before the Inter-Governmental Committee?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cluse: Is the hon. Member aware of the offer of the Jewish authorities to absorb 10,000 Jewish children from Germany into Palestine?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into such a statement if the hon. Member will put it before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWS SERVICE (VANSITTART COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister how often the Vansittart Committee, to study the subject of British news service abroad, has met; what was the date of its appointment; when it last met; when it will next meet; and what is the result to date of its activities?

Mr. Butler: As the full statement desired is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that this committee is somewhat moribund; and, in view of the great importance of this subject, would not some further action be desirable?

Mr. Butler: I should describe this committee as being extremely lively. If the hon. and gallant Member will read the statement to be circulated, I think he will agree that the statement I have made is borne out by the facts.

Following is the statement:

The Vansittart Committee was set up in February this year to co-ordinate the work of certain organisations engaged on British publicity abroad. It has held three meetings of the full Committee, of which the first two were devoted to a survey of the field to be covered and the third to a general report making a series of recommendations to His Majesty's Government. In between the formal meetings of the Committee, there has been close consultation with the various bodies engaged on publicity abroad with a view to effective co-ordination, and, when necessary, special meetings have been called to consider particular aspects of the problem. The next meeting of the full Committee is to take place this week. The main task before the Committee during this period has been to plan the scope of publicity abroad by considering the extent to which the work was already covered by existing organisations such as the B.B.C., the British Council and the Travel Association, and how far certain gaps had to be filled. As a result of the recommenda-

tions of the Committee, Parliament will be asked in the New Year to vote additional grants to the British Council and the Travel Association, and Press officers will be appointed at a number of His Majesty's Missions abroad. Other recommendations are under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND GERMANY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government have been kept informed of the conversations between Herr von Ribbentrop and French Ministers in Paris; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on Monday.

Mr. Mander: Does the agreement which has been come to include or exclude German claims on territories held under mandate by French and formerly belonging to Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — TUNIS, CORSICA AND NICE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether in the course of the recent staff conversations between representatives of Great Britain and France, the necessary arrangements were made for the joint defence, if necessary, of Nice, Corsica, and Tunis?

The Prime Minister: I am not able to add anything to the general statement which I made in reply to the hon. Member on 30th March.

Mr. Mander: Is it not very important for France to know whether this country is going to stand by her if Corsica and Tunis are attacked? Should the Prime Minister not say definitely, one way or the other, what our attitude is going to be?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government were a signatory of the 1923 Convention affecting British citizens in Tunis, and the provisions of the Anglo-Italian Agreement safeguarding the status quo in the Mediterranean, His Majesty's Government will represent to the Italian Government that


aggression against Tunis will not find this country disinterested?

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will regard as an act unfriendly to Great Britain an attack by Italy upon any of the possessions of our ally the French Republic?

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to treat Annex of the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 26th April, which deals with the maintenance of the status quo in the Mediteranean, as applying to the French protectorate over Tunis; and whether he has made it quite clear that this country will resist any attempt to alter that position at the expense of France?

The Prime Minister: In the view of His Majesty's Government, the undertaking to respect the status quo in the Mediterranean, as embodied in the Anglo-Italian Agreement, certainly applies to Tunis, and any action which was contrary to the agreement would, of course, be a matter of grave concern to His Majesty's Government. They cannot, however, contemplate the possibility of such an attack as is suggested in these questions.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the fact that the Italian Press are stating that this country is sympathetic to the Italian claims, will a copy of that reply be conveyed to the Italian Government?

Mr. V. Adams: In view of the identity of interests which exists between the two Western democracies, would not the safety of both be promoted by a full, formal defensive alliance?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

POSTERS (BRITISH TROOPS' CONDUCT).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement concerning a protest made by His Majesty's Consul-General at Frankfurt-on-Main against German posters maligning the British troops in Palestine?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. A report received from His Majesty's Consul-General makes it clear that accounts

which appeared in the Press were based on a misunderstanding. Mr. Smallbones made no official protest but, in expressing to the military commandant of Frankfurt his regret that his engagements prevented him from accepting an invitation addressed to him, he drew the latter's attention to these posters and said that he thought their exhibition regrettable.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has an expression of approval been conveyed to Mr. Smallbones for his very proper conduct in this matter?

Mr. Butler: Mr. Smallbones is one of our most respected officials, and I am sure he will realise that his action had the approval of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mander: Have the posters been withdrawn?

JEWS.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to a recent decree, the Jews in Berlin are unable to proceed along the Wilhelm-strasse to His Majesty's Embassy and Consulate-General in order to obtain visas which shall enable them to enter this country; and whether His Majesty's Government will open a temporary consulate in the Alexanderplatz district?

Mr. Butler: I am informed that a police decree became effective on 6th December which prohibits German and stateless Jews from entering certain thoroughfares, including that part of the Wilhelmstrasse in which the British Embassy is situated. Visas are, however, granted at the Passport Control Office which, with the Consulate-General, is situated in the Tiergartenstrasse, in respect of which there is no such prohibition. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister what communications have recently passed between His Majesty's Government and the German Government with regard to facilities for the emigration of Jews; and, in particular, with regard to financial facilities?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have from time to time been in communication with the German Government regarding the initiation of discus-


sions between the German authorities and the Director of the Inter-Governmental Committee concerning the question of emigration from Germany. No definite reply has yet been received.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to assume, therefore, that a newspaper report to the effect that financial facilities were being considered by the German Government is incorrect?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, I would not like to go as far as that, but I would repeat what I said in the original answer, that we are in touch with them, and that no definite reply has yet been received.

Mr. Mander: Has the visit of Dr. Schacht to this country any connection with this matter?

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the conversations and communications to which he refers also include financial matters?

Mr. Butler: I would not like to exclude anything, but I regret that I cannot go into any further details at this stage.

Mr. Logan: Will it be possible for the Government to take ail cases of maternity where children are likely to be born in Germany of Jewish mothers and bring them to this country as in the Neumann case last week?

Mr. Mander: Is it the fact that Dr. Schacht is making a visit to this country in connection with this matter?

Mr. Butler: As I have said, I cannot give any further details on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

FOREIGN PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what information has been received concerning German activities in Palestine either through German moneys passing through Damascus to Palestine, the printing of anti-semitic propagandist literature in Arabic in Germany for distribution in Palestine and Egypt, and otherwise?

Mr. Butler: I am not able to disclose the information which His Majesty's Government receive on these matters. It does not, however, bear out all the accounts which have appeared in the

Press and elsewhere. Activities such as those to which the hon. Member refers would be a matter of serious concern to the Government.

Mr. Mander: May I take it from that answer that the Government have received information on this subject on the lines of the question I have put down?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept that they have information on the lines of the question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me. As I always inform the House, the Government are very well informed on all subjects.

Mr. Callacher: Is there any chance of the House being as well informed?

MCMAHON CORRESPONDENCE.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government accept the authenticity of the English translation of the McMahon correspondence regarding Palestine; and, if there is any doubt as to its implications, whether they will submit it to the Hague Tribunal to determine the meaning and validity?

Mr. Butler: I am not aware what English translation my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. Translations of the important passages in the correspondence were, however, published in the report of the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937, and I understand that the passages quoted may be regarded as adequate translations of the originals. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state for each of the last five years the number of distilleries and breweries, respectively, for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor in Palestine; and how many are owned, respectively, by Arabs, Jews, or other nationalities?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The number of factories licensed to manufacture spirits and beer respectively in each of the last five years was as follows:






1933.
1934.
1935.
1936.
1937.


Distilleries
…
16
15
16
16
17


Breweries
…
—
—
1
1
1

The information at my disposal does not indicate the nationality of the owners.

IMMIGRATION (JEWISH CHILD REFUGEES).

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now grant facilities for the 10,000 German-Jewish children, for whom homes have already been found by the Jewish Agency to enter Palestine?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet given permission for the admission of 10,000 Jewish children from Germany to Palestine?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the House is aware, His Majesty's Government have invited representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and of the Governments of neighbouring countries, and representatives of the Jewish Agency to come to London for discussions on future policy in Palestine, including immigration. Strong suggestions have been made to the Government from Arab quarters that immigration should be completely stopped pending these discussions. His Majesty's Government felt unable to agree to this suggestion since to make any alteration in the existing rate of immigration now would be to prejudice the position regarding one of the main subjects for discussion in London. His Majesty's Government attach great importance to these discussions and, for the same reason, they cannot agree that authority should be given for the immediate additional immigration of 10,000 young Jews.
This does not necessarily mean that the request is being permanently refused. Immigration is a subject which will be considered in the course of the discussions in London, which it is hoped may begin in the course of next month. I understand that, if it is desirable that these children should leave Germany in the meantime, they can be received in this country under the various schemes which are now being operated for the care of Jewish child refugees, if the refugee organisations can guarantee their maintenance. I should add that considerable numbers of young refugees from Germany are at present being admitted into Palestine under the existing arrangements,

both as dependants and as students proceeding to recognised educational institutions, including agricultural training centres.

Mr. Adams: As this is a matter of extreme urgency, will my right hon. Friend see that one or other of the means suggested is used to get these children out of their present environment with the greatest possible speed?

Mr. MacDonald: That is a matter, in the first place, for the organisations which are doing this work in the country to-day.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these children in Germany in many cases are in really terrible conditions, without adult protection and without the means of finding food, and is he aware that the machinery of the Home Office for granting visas is so inadequate that the visas cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities to save their lives?

Mr. MacDonald: All these factors have been borne in mind in reaching this decision. So far as the children coming to camps or other accommodation in this country are concerned, the authorities are doing everything possible to expedite the bringing of the children into this country.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Seeing that the only large-scale outlet for the children, who can immediately be received, is in Palestine, will not the right hon. Gentleman ask the Arab leaders, as an act of charity to these children, to allow them to come in?

LONDON DISCUSSIONS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how he proposes to secure representative Palestinian Arab delegates for the forthcoming discussions in London; and which organisation or organisations will be asked to make nominations?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not yet in a position to add anything to what I said in reply to questions on the subject on 7th December.

Mr. Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend say on what date it is expected that the conference will be held?

Mr. MacDonald: I shall not be able to say until we know when the Palestinian


delegation has been appointed and will be able to arrive. Apart from that, all the arrangements are ready.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government to consult with Arab trade unionist organisations or representative bodies of Arab fellaheen in Palestine for the purpose of securing equitable representation at the forthcoming discussions in London?

Mr. MacDonald: I am informed that there are no Arab trade unionist organisations or representative bodies of Arab fellaheen who could be consulted.

TERRORISTS (ARMS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the country of origin of the guns and other weapons captured from terrorist Arab gangs in Palestine?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am awaiting a report on this matter from the High Commissioner.

Mr. Pilkington: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these weapons are still being introduced into Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald: That is another question of which I should require notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AUXILIARY SQUADRONS.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is any Territorial unit connected with the Air Ministry which private owners, over the age of 25 years but with over 1,000 hours' flying experience, can join?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): Candidates can apply to join Auxiliary Air Force squadrons for flying duties up to the age of 30, whether they have previous flying experience or not. Pilots over the normal maximum age of 25 can apply for entry to the Royal Air Force Vounteer Reserve if they have 100 hours flying to their credit and are in current flying practice.

CADET CORPS SQUADRONS.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many squadrons of the Royal Air Force cadets have now been formed; and how many of them are

located in Scotland and Wales, respectively?

Sir K. Wood: The number of squadrons of the Air Defence Cadet Corps which have now been formed is 31, one of which is in Wales. No squadrons have yet been formed in Scotland, but I am informed by the Air League of the British Empire that they are hoping to organise some Scottish units early in the New Year.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there is this lack of initiative on the part of the Scottish nation?

Mr. Kirkwood: Did I not say yesterday that there are five Scottish regiments in Palestine?

FREETOWN, SIERRA LEONE (LANDING GROUND).

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that the existing landing ground for aeroplanes at Freetown, Sierra Leone, is suitable for large aeroplanes?

Sir K. Wood: The existing landing ground at Freetown, Sierra Leone, was prepared some years ago for occasional use by the Royal Air Force and is not now suitable for use by large modern aircraft. The question of providing at Freetown an aerodrome more suitable for modern requirements is now under consideration.

NEW AERODROMES (LABOUR).

Mr. Dunn: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he co-operates with the Employment Exchanges with regard to the employment of unemployed persons in any area where new aerodromes are being erected; and why men are being imported to Hatfield, near Don-caster, when there are thousands of unemployed within the area?

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the proposal to erect a large aerodrome at Hatfield, near Doncaster; that it is also proposed to erect wooden huts to accommodate a large number of imported labourers; and will he take steps to engage local unemployed labour for whom houses and all other services have been provided?

Sir K. Wood: A Royal Air Force aerodrome is to be erected at Hatfield, near Doncaster, as part of the approved expansion scheme. I am informed that the only hutting being erected there is to provide canteen accommodation for the contractors' workmen. Whilst I have no power to compel contractors to engage labour from any particular source, they are always asked to obtain their labour through the local Employment Exchange. I am assured that, in this instance, apart from a small nucleus of experienced men already in their employment, the contractors are willing to do this.

Mr. T. Smith: Are we to take it from that answer that the statement made in the Press that large numbers of men are to be imported into this district is incorrect?

Sir K. Wood: This is just the nucleus of the experienced men who are necessary, but I understand that the greater number of people who will be employed there will be obtained locally.

Mr. James Griffiths: Are we to understand that the Minister has no power to compel contractors who get these contracts to recruit their men from the local Employment Exchange?

Sir K. Wood: As a matter of fact, on all building contract forms there is a slip which says that the contractor shall notify the appropriate Employment Exchange as and when any additional labour is required to carry out the contract. It is done by that means, and I have no reason to suppose that contractors are not following it out.

Mr. Pritt: Would it not be better to have a clause in the contract, and not a slip?

Sir K. Wood: No difficulty has arisen, but if there is any difficulty I will consider the suggestion.

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement with regard to future aircraft production in Scotland, intimating what guarantees he has received from local authorities?

Sir K. Wood: I have recently held certain discussions as to the further part which Scotland will take in the air expansion programme. Substantial orders

have already been placed in Scotland, notably with the factory which has been erected at Dumbarton, and arrangements have been made for more than half of the work assigned to this factory to be sub-contracted to other firms. In so far as there is suitable capacity available in Scotland which cannot be employed on sub-contracts, a scheme is being developed under which firms will be invited to submit proposals for the manufacture of aircraft components under direct contracts. I would add that the Director-General of Production at the Air Ministry will visit Scotland in the near future to discuss these matters.

AMERICAN AIRCRAFT ORDERS (INSPECTION).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Aeronautical Inspection Department will have any and, if so, what duties in the supervision of the manufacture of aircraft ordered in Canada and the United States of America?

Sir K. Wood: Both in Canada and the United States of America representatives of the Aeronautical Inspection Directorate will be stationed in the contractors' works, and the inspection of the aircraft on order for the Air Ministry will be carried out under their supervision by the inspection staffs of the firms.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in informed quarters there is some apprehension that these inspections will be too meticulously carried out and lead to the same inordinate delays as have occurred in this country? Will he, therefore, consider cutting down the amount of inspection to the barest essential minimum?

Sir K. Wood: I will certainly bear that in mind, but the hon. Member will agree that we must have a certain amount of inspection to see that the work is properly carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

AIRPORTS, LONDON.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any additional airports are contemplated for serving London; and whether any steps will be taken to bring Croydon airport into line with the minimum requirements laid down by the Air Ministry?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Heston airport, which is now the property of the Air Ministry, is being progressively enlarged and Fairlop will also be available as an additional airport when it has been completed by the Corporation of the City of London and other possibilities are in prospect. When additional facilities are thus afforded it may be possible to close Croydon temporarily in order to undertake improvements to those features in which the aerodrome falls short of the full requirements now considered desirable. In the meantime, such improvements as can be made without closing the airport have been or are being put in hand.

Mr. Perkins: If I put down a question after the Parliamentary Recess, will my hon. and gallant Friend be able to tell the House what result has been achieved?

Captain Balfour: If my hon. Friend will put a question down I hope to be able to give him some further information.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS AND BRITISH AIRWAYS.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is the intention of Imperial Airways, Limited, to engage the whole of the present staff of British Airways, Limited, when the contemplated fusion takes place?

Captain Balfour: My right hon. Friend anticipates that the proposed corporation when formed will find it possible to make provision for continuing the employment of most, if not all, of the staff of the two companies.

Mr. Bracken: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether His Majesty's Government was consulted before the directors of Imperial Airways, Limited, and British Airways, Limited, published an announcement regarding an important change in the future management of their companies, and connected that change with a statement of policy made by him in this House forecasting legislation to set up a public corporation to acquire the businesses of British Airways, Limited, and Imperial Airways, Limited; and whether, to prevent the public investing their money in these companies under a misapprehension, he will give an assurance that he has in no way committed this House to any financial responsibility to the shareholders of these companies?

Sir K. Wood: The announcement referred to in the first part of the question deals with a question of administration which is the responsibility of the boards of the companies concerned. I was, however, informed of their proposed action, which had my entire approval. In reply to the second part of the question I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he asks for.

BLIND LANDING WIRELESS EQUIPMENT.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air particulars and number of airports in Great Britain that have been fitted and equipped with blind landing wireless equipment in the interests of safety in fog and other conditions of low visibility; and can he state if, according to reports received, same has been successful in use up to date?

Captain Balfour: Equipment designed to assist landings in conditions of bad visibility has been installed at three civil airports in Great Britain, namely, Croydon, Heston and Liverpool Reports received indicate that the Lorenz installation at Croydon and the medium wave beacon at Liverpool have proved satisfactory in operation. At Heston electrical interference has so far prevented the use of the Lorenz system, but steps are being taken to overcome the difficulty. Meanwhile, an alternative known as the Z.Z. system has been provided at Heston and this, though only recently installed, is proving satisfactory.

Mr. Day: Have not the technical tests of the instruments been concluded?

Captain Balfour: As regards the instruments, we are constantly in a state of technical development, and he would be a bold person who would say that we have reached finality.

SEAPLANES (TROPICAL CLIMATES).

Sir C. MacAndrew: asked the Secretary of State for Air what action he proposes to take in view of the fact that the rapid deterioration of the seaplane supplied for the Sierra Leone-Bathurst air service in June, 1938, has demonstrated that seaplanes are unsuited for prolonged service in the tropics?

Captain Balfour: I cannot accept the contention of my hon. and gallant Friend that seaplanes are not satisfactory for operation in tropical climates, as the ex-


perience of this country and other countries demonstrates that they are suitable. In the particular case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, corrosion by sea water, caused by lack of adequate maintenance facilities, was discovered when the machine was being dismantled for renewal of its certificate of airworthiness. Additional men and equipment were immediately sent out from England to deal with this, and I am informed that the necessary repairs should be completed very shortly. I would add that a seaplane of similar type has been in regular operation in Burma for over two years.

Mr. Davidson: Has any action been taken against those who were responsible for not informing the Government with regard to this rapid deterioration, and its causes?

Sir C. MacAndrew: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how soon the air mail will be re-established?

Captain Balfour: In about 14 days when the repairs have been completed.

PASSENGERS' PARACHUTES.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the desirability of some regulation for the provision of parachutes for passengers on State-subsidised air lines?

Captain Balfour: The question of requiring parachutes to be provided for passengers on civil air transport aircraft is one that has been frequently considered, and the decision which has hitherto been arrived at is that it would not, on several grounds, be advisable to make such provision compulsory, at all events at the present time.

AGRICULTURAL POLICY.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider setting up a panel of leading agriculturists to co-operate with the Minister of Agriculture in framing his agricultural policy for next year; the panel to be constituted on similar lines to the panel of industrial advisers just set up to advise in matters connected with the Defence programme?

The Prime Minister: The panel of industrial advisers to which my hon. and

gallant Friend refers has been set up not to advise upon policy which is a matter for the Government, but to receive representations and suggest remedies in regard to practical difficulties that may arise in the execution of that policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has already at his disposal agencies and individuals who perform this function.

Viscountess Astor: Ought not the Government to have a long-term policy, not a short-term policy?

REARMAMENT PROGRAMME (INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY PANEL).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the new advisory panel for rearmament is authorised to receive representations from bodies, such as the Scottish Development Council, who can speak for all or many firms in their area, about whose facilities and potential service they have full information:
(2) whether the new advisory panel for rearmament is authorised to consider the geographical distribution of armament contracts?

The Prime Minister: The points raised by the hon. Member are points of procedure which it will be for the panel itself to consider under the terms of reference already communicated to the House.

Mr. Stewart: Does that mean that the Panel is not prohibited from receiving representations from other bodies such as the Development Council?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Alexander: Will the Prime Minister cease to extend this system of setting up Soviets to replace incompetent Ministers?

AERIAL WARFARE (BOMBING OF CIVILIANS).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the inter-Departmental survey of the problem of the development of aerial warfare, particularly in relation to the bombing of civilian populations, is now completed; and whether he can make a statement on the matter?

The Prime Minister: This complex question has involved considerable investigation into technical matters, with a view


to evolving a scheme which is both practicable and likely to prove generally acceptable. The survey is not yet completed, and I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the wholesale bombing of the civilian population in China and Spain, will the Prime Minister do his best to expedite the formulation of this policy?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that it has been a long time, but it is a complicated question, and the hon. Member will be aware that events have occurred which have rather interfered with the normal work.

DEFENCE (PATENT RIGHTS AND INVENTIONS).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the nature of the claims that are being made on the Government in respect of the Frazer-Nash patents, rights, and inventions; what is the amount of the claim; and what is the Government's estimated value of these patents and inventions?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): Claims have been made against the Government in respect of the use of the inventions of Captain Archibald Frazer-Nash, mainly in connection with gun turrets. These matters are at present under negotiation with the claimants, and in these circumstances it is not desirable to state either the amount of the claims or the Government's estimate of the value of these patents and inventions.

Sir Joseph Nall: May I ask whether the claims are all of alien origin?

Sir T. Inskip: The claims are not of alien origin as far as I know.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: Is it not a fact that this company was the pioneer of the idea of power-driven gun turrets?

Sir T. Inskip: Yes, Sir, I think that is the case.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he can give a list of firms who are making claims from the Government in respect

of patent rights and inventions; and how many of the claims are for, directly or indirectly, other than British firms?

Sir T. Inskip: I regret that it is not in the public interest to give the names of firms who are making claims from the three Service Departments in respect of patent rights and inventions, but I am informed that the total number of such firms is 129, and that of these 29 claims are being made by or on behalf of other than British firms.

COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES (DEVELOPMENT).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the appointment of a commission to visit all parts of the Colonial Empire and mandated territories to ascertain what dependencies are capable of further development; what fields there are for further British capital investment and settlement; and what steps are necessary to increase the purchasing power of the 66,000,000 inhabitants of the dependent Empire which during the first six months of 1938 only purchased £29,000,000 worth of goods from Great Britain compared with £70,000,000 worth purchased by the self-governing Dominions?

Mr. M. MacDonald: While I am in sympathy with the objectives which my hon. Friend has in mind, I do not feel that the appointment of a commission such as he suggests would be an effective method of achieving them.

Mr. De Chair: Is it not a fact that the situation in the West Indies came somewhat as a surprise, and would not a commission to investigate the whole of these matters enable the Government to accelerate their development?

Mr. MacDonald: One of the reasons why the particular proposal is not the best one is that we have a number of local commissions making inquiries already into this very question, including the Royal Commission on the West Indies.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether in view of these difficulties the right hon. Gentleman has any doubt in his mind as to the future of the British Empire?

Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the latter part as well as the first part of the speech I delivered.

Mr. Paling: Is it not time that the appallingly low rate of wages paid to millions of these people should be investigated so as to raise their purchasing power, if it is at all possible under the capitalist system? Could not we send out a commission to investigate this matter?

Mr. MacDonald: As far as the West Indies are concerned, the question of the purchasing power of the people is covered already by the terms of reference to the Royal Commission.

BARBADOS (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the recommendations of the report of the Commission on Disturbances in Barbados, in July, 1937, have been put into operation?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Riley: Has any increase in wages taken place as a result of the recommendations of the Commission?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir, some increases have taken place. They were referred to in a reply which I gave a month or two ago, and they are also referred to in the long answer to the question.

Following is the reply:

Since the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 28th July, the following additional recommendations of the Barbados Commission have been put into operation:

(a) Arrangements have now been made for the inspection of scales and the verification of weights before the next crop season (paragraph 17 of report).
(b) A Transport Board has been created and has passed regulations to allocate and control bus services (paragraph 34).
(c) A Housing Board has been appointed and has presented, as a preliminary step, a £5,000 scheme for housing persons to be evicted from slum areas.

(d) The post of Labour Officer has been created and I am taking steps to find a suitable officer to fill it.
In addition to the above, the following proposals are receiving active consideration.
(e) The Director of Agriculture has proposed an alternative scheme of minimum payments for sugar cane grown on peasants' holdings. The alternative scheme will give the same average price as that recommended by the Commission in paragraph 16 of their report. Legislation is being drafted to give effect to this.
(f) A scheme for the centralisation of health services has been drafted by the Board of Health and now awaits consideration by the Legislature (paragraph 18).
(g) Regulations under the Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery Act are being drafted to constitute Advisory Boards (paragraphs 22, 45 and 51).
(h) A Bill to compel the planting of vegetables on 5 per cent. of the arable acreage of plantations is in draft (paragraph 64).
(i) A Trade Union Bill is before a Select Committee of the Legislature (paragraph 65).

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

CONTROL OF LIGHTING ORDINANCE.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Control of Lighting Ordinance (No. 7 of 1938) Kenya Colony has received the Royal Assent?

Mr. M. MacDonald: This Ordinance was assented to in His Majesty's name by the Governor on 14th May, and the Governor has since been informed that His Majesty's power of disallowance will not be exercised.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the rather excessive penalties which are to be applied as far as experimental blackouts are concerned, particularly as the natives have peculiar methods of lighting in their houses?

Mr. MacDonald: I am sure that the Governor will keep those questions in mind in the administration of the Ordinance.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will set up a court of adjudication to decide on the continued levying of Income Tax in Kenya and upon its non-levying in Uganda and Tanganyika, especially in view of the fact that the European community is not satisfied with the investigations of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not yet received a report of the results of the Standing Finance Committee's investigations into the question of Income Tax in Kenya. When this report, and the Governor's views thereon, have been received, I shall be in a position to consider whether any further inquiry into the question is desirable. On present information, I can only regard the proposal as premature.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the report of the Committee on Juvenile Employment in Kenya has yet been published; and, if so, whether any decisions have been taken on the committee's recommendations?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir; the committee's report was published on 7th December. The Governor of Kenya proposes to adopt the committee's principal recommendations and I have authorised him to do so. The following are among the more important changes to be effected:—

(a) The minimum age for any employment is to be raised to 12 years; that for industrial employment 14 years.
(b) Penal sanctions for breach of contract by juveniles will be abolished.
(c) The Labour Inspectorate of the Colony is being augmented.
For further detail I would refer my hon. Friend to the text of the report, copies of which he will find in the Library of the House.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether further consideration cannot be given to the question of the employment of children of the age of 12, away from their homes; and whether some order cannot be made to prohibit that type of employment?

Mr. MacDonald: These matters were gone into fully by the committee of inquiry in Kenya and we are accepting the recommendations made after that full consideration.

Mr. Paling: Has the Minister himself considered this report; and if so, does he regard it as just that children of 12 should be enabled to enter into labour contracts which take them away from their homes often for considerable periods, even under these new regulations?

Mr. MacDonald: I have given this matter a good deal of consideration, and I have studied the report and I am satisfied that, in all the circumstances, these recommendations meet the case.

CYPRUS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) the reason for the suspension of publication of the Cyprus newspaper "Proia" and whether, in the interests of justice, he will arrange that in the event of any further suspensions the reasons for such action shall be intimated to those concerned and made public;
(2) for what reason the newspaper "Embros" has been made subject to censorship by the Government of Cyprus; and whether he will arrange for the withdrawal of this restriction upon the free expression of opinion which is not contrary to the public interest?

Mr. MacDonald: I am in communication with the Governor of Cyprus, but am not yet in a position to make any statement on those matters. I have asked the Governor to furnish me with a full report as soon as possible.

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to answer a further question on this matter before the House rises?

Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member will keep in touch with me, I will indicate to him when he may put a question down. I see no reason why I should not be able to make a statement before the House rises, but I would not like to make a definite commitment.

Mr. de Rothschild: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement also about the censorship of the newspaper "Embros" by the Government of Cyprus?

WEST AFRICA (COTTON INDUSTRY).

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he is taking in order to implement the findings of the Commission that recently visited the West Coast of Africa, following the boycott of Lancashire cotton goods?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 30th November, to which I am not yet in a position to add anything.

Mr. Burke: In view of the great urgency of this matter, particularly to the Lancashire cotton trade, will the Minister inform us when he is likely to receive these reports, which have been called for over and over again by representative bodies in the Lancashire cotton trade?

Mr. MacDonald: I must, in the first place, wait for the observations of the Governors in the Colonies concerned, who have to make contacts with the various interests, including the native interests. I understand that one of the reports of the Governors is on the way. I can assure the hon. Member that no unnecessary delay will be allowed.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the action of certain chocolate manufacturers in this country in applying undue pressure on natives in West Africa?

TANGANYIKA (EDUCATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the proportion of revenue in Tanganyika spent on education dropped from 8.09 per cent. in 1931–32 to 3.99 per cent. in 1937, and that this proportion has been dropping whilst revenue has been rising; whether he is satisfied with this service to the educational needs of the territory; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The position is admittedly unsatisfactory; and I propose to examine the matter thoroughly in consultation with the Governor, who has recently been requested to prepare the necessary statistical material. I may add that expenditure on education has shown steady increases during 1937 and 1938, and in addition the territory has recently

undertaken to provide £100,000 towards the Endowment Fund for the new Makerere College.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to confess that he was unaware of this very serious drop in expenditure on education, and does he not recognise what a very poor demonstration this is of the superiority of British Imperialism over other forms of Imperialism?

Mr. MacDonald: I was not unaware that there was a considerable drop in expenditure at the time of the trade depression a few years ago. As stated in the answer, that expenditure has been steadily increasing over the last two or three years. I had already taken steps to have the matter thoroughly examined before the hon. Member put this question.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister see that at least the expenditure on education goes up to the level of 1931?

GOLD COAST (MEDICAL SERVICE).

Mr. C. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give for the Gold Coast, in the case of European and African medical officers having, respectively, the same qualifications, the period of probationary service, the periodicity and amount of salary increments, and the maximum salary attainable; whether in either case there is an efficiency bar and whether quarters are provided; and whether there are any appointments open to Europeans only?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wilson: Is there an efficiency bar?

Mr. MacDonald: There is an efficiency bar in both cases.

Following is the reply:

The scale of salary for a European medical officer in the Gold Coast is £660 a year for three years, then £690 a year rising by annual increments of £30 to £840 a year, then, subject to passing an efficiency bar, £880 a year rising by annual increments of £40 to £1,000 a year. The period of probation is three years, and free quarters are provided. The scale of salary for an African medical officer in


the Gold Coast is £500 a year rising by annual increments of £25 to £600 a year, thence, subject to passing an efficiency bar, rising by annual increments of £30 to £720 a year. The period of probation is three years, and free quarters are not provided. Whilst awaiting probationary appointment, an African (suitably qualified) may be employed as a junior medical officer in one of the larger hospitals of the Gold Coast for a period of preliminary training during which he is granted salary at the rate of £400 a year. At present, the higher posts in the Medical Department of the Gold Coast are normally filled by European officers belonging to the Colonial Medical Service. No appointments are, however, actually reserved for European officers, and in the medical, as in the other branches of the Service, African officers are fully eligible to be considered on their merits for promotion to any appointments for which they may be qualified.

COLONIES (WOMEN MAGISTRATES).

Viscountess Astor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are women magistrates in any of the Colonies?

Mr. M. MacDonald: There are no women stipendiary magistrates in the Colonies, but there may be lay Justices of the Peace who are women.

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter, as I can assure him that there really are some splendid women there? Why are they not appointed?

Mr. MacDonald: I will bear that fact in mind.

DOMINIONS AND COLONIAL OFFICES (ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, WOMEN).

Viscountess Astor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he intends to maintain the restriction on the admission of women to the administrative staff of the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir. I have decided to remove the restriction which has hitherto been in force. But I think

it is desirable that, in the first instance, the admission of women to the administrative staff of the Dominions Office and Colonial Office—which might necessitate service overseas—should be regarded as experimental, in order that the matter may be reviewed, after a few years, in the light of experience gained during that time.

Viscountess Astor: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has said, will he bear in mind that women do the work as well as men?

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Does my right hon. Friend envisage the immediate appointment of any governesses?

Mr. H. G. Williams: In examining this matter, will my right hon. Friend call for a report from Virginia as to the success of black magistrates in the United States?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRUNK ROAD, STAFFORD-TALKE.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to the state of the main road between Stafford and Talke, to the bridges and to the number of accidents; and is it proposed to make the road suitable for modern use?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): Yes, Sir, and as a result I have in hand a number of schemes for improving the trunk road between Stafford and Talke, including a by-pass to Newcastle-under-Lyme. Land acquisition is proceeding, and I hope constructional work on several of the schemes will begin next year.

RAILWAY FACILITIES, FIFESHIRE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the very unsatisfactory nature of railway transport facilities in the county of Fife, particularly the closing down of the station at Kelty; and whether he will consult with the railway company concerning the necessity of increasing the utility to the public of the services concerned?

Mr. Burgin: I am informed by the London and North Eastern Railway Company that they consider the train services


which they provide in the county of Fife to be adequate for the traffic which is offered. The only important instances where facilities have been withdrawn in recent years are the closing, for passenger traffic, of the Dunfermline-Kincardine and Kincardine-Alloa lines in 1930, and of the Leslie branch in 1932. The passenger train service, which was very little used, was withdrawn from Kelty station in 1930, as part of a scheme for effecting economies in the face of declining revenue. I am assured that in each case adequate alternative facilities exist to meet the requirements of the districts concerned.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there no possibility of coming to some understanding with the railway company to get this line opened up and increase the amount of traffic; and is the Minister aware that there is a very inadequate railway service in Fife?

Mr. Burgin: At Kelty there were only 17 or 18 passengers a day for a number of years. The passenger bookings fell off by nearly 97 per cent.

Mr. Gallacher: Was that not due to the fact that passengers were not encouraged, because of the infrequency of the trains and the irregularity of the service?

Mr. Burgin: There were five each way.

ACCIDENTS, POPLAR.

Mr. D. M. Adams: asked the Minister of Transport the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents that have occurred in the East India Dock Road, Poplar, during the years 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937, and to the nearest available date of 1938, respectively?

Mr. Burgin: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The complete information asked for by the hon. Member could not be supplied without considerable research. Comparable statistics of road accidents in that part of East India Dock Road within the Borough of Poplar for the six months ended 30th September in each of the years 1934 to 1938 are as follow:



Six months ended 30th September

Accidents involving fatality.
Other accidents involving personal injury.
Total.


1934
…
4
79
83


1935
…
—
85
85


1936
…
—
84
84


1937
…
2
70
72


1938
…
1
88
89

COASTWISE SHIPPING TRAFFIC.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Transport what classes of merchandise are covered by the schedule of rates agreed upon between the coastwise liner companies and the railway companies and the routes to which these rates apply?

Mr. Burgin: The agreement between the coastwise liner shipping companies and the railway companies is a voluntary one and is understood to cover the carriage of goods in Classes 7 to 20 of the General Railway Classification of Merchandise and Livestock between the ports and other places in Great Britain where the interests of the two parties are common.

Mr. Hall: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any figures to show the extent to which coastwise shipping traffic has been diverted to the railways; and whether, in view of the statements in the Memorandum presented by the Chamber of Shipping to the Traffic Advisory Council as to the methods adopted by the railway companies to divert traffic from the sea, he will indicate what steps he is taking to develop the coastwise shipping service, in view of the economic advantage of water-borne traffic in peace time and the vulnerability of the railways to attack from the air in time of war?

Mr. Burgin: As regards the first part of the question, I have no particulars to show whether and, if so, to what extent, traffic has been diverted from coastwise shipping to railways. The second part of the question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but I may point out that coastwise shipping traffic, as measured by the official statistics of arrivals and departures of vessels with cargo in the coasting trade of Great Britain, has substantially increased during recent years.

Sir J. Nall: Is that not due to the effect of increasing competition by foreign-owned coastwise ships?

CO-ORDINATION.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the four main line railway companies submitted a Memorandum to the Transport Advisory Council on 7th September, 1936, in which they did not ask to be exempted from their obligations regarding rate-fixing, which they regard as not inappropriate to a public service, and suggested that the acceptance of analogous obligations by road hauliers would constitute a step essential to the building up of any stable and equitable system of coordination; and whether he will take steps to hasten the co-ordination of transport rather than introduce the legislation now demanded by the railway companies for the removal of the existing statutory requirements?

Mr. Burgin: I am aware of the Memorandum referred to. The whole question of the co-ordination of transport is receiving my earnest consideration in the light of the reports of the Transport Advisory Council on Service and Rates, and in referring the present proposals of the railway companies to that Council for their very early consideration and advice I have informed them that I am inclined to the view that in existing circumstances there is prima facie a case for some material relaxation of existing statutory regulations providing that due regard is had to the ultimate objective of the coordination of all forms of transport.

Mr. Watkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that, since he is giving consideration to the co-ordination aspect of this question, there is a possibility that that aspect might take precedence over the railway companies' present claims?

Mr. Burgin: I think the objective to be attained is the co-ordination of the forms of transport. That is one of the principal matters in view, in the reference of the particular remedies suggested by the railway companies, to the Transport Advisory Council.

Mr. Watkins: What I am asking is, does the right hon. Gentleman consider it possible that he might advise that coordination should take precedence of, and

so render unnecessary, the proposals of the railway companies?

Mr. Burgin: I am hardly in a position to say that yet.

Mr. Holdsworth: Would the Minister give the House a definition of "co-ordination"?

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

Mr. Bracken: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the Government's decision to postpone legislation for the reorganisation of electricity distribution, he will consider the advisability of making arrangements to suspend the options held by a number of local authorities to take over orders held by private undertakings until Parliament has an opportunity of considering a comprehensive scheme for the future regulation of electricity distribution?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I will consider any arguments which may be put before me as to the need for some special action, together with any views which the purchasing authorities themselves may desire to submit to me upon any such proposal.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the inhabitants of the Vale of Evesham and other rural areas in this country are subjected to great inconvenience and loss of amenities on account of the lack of electricity supply facilities?

LIGHTING SYSTEM, STEELEND, FIFE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the only lighting available in Steelend, Fife, is obtained from current supplied by the neighbouring colliery of Messrs. Wilson and Clyde, for which tenants pay 2s. weekly irrespective of amount used; that the current is subject to frequent and total failure, is always unobtainable until 5 p.m., is cut off at dawn, and that current is unavailable for other domestic purposes than lighting; and whether he will consult with the local authority concerned with a view to carrying power to the village that will be of greater utility to the inhabitants?

Mr. Burgin: I am informed that arrangements are in hand whereby a supply will shortly be made available by a statutory undertaker.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister see that arrangements for an adequate lighting system are expedited; and is he aware that, on a recent Saturday night, the collector of the rent and light money, had to give up his job because the light failed?

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 1st February, I shall call attention to the need for the Equalisation of the Burden of Public Assistance, and move a Resolution.

CONDITION OF AGRICULTURE.

Sir Percy Hurd: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 1st February, I shall call attention to the Condition of Agriculture, and move a Resolution.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Charles Brown: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 1st February, I shall call attention to the question of Workmen's Compensation, and move a Resolution.

FINANCE.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I beg to give notice that, on Wednesday, 1st February, I shall call attention to Finance, and move a Resolution.

LAND NATIONALISATION.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I beg to move,
That, inasmuch as the private ownership of land is a serious barrier to the full development of the agricultural, industrial, and social activities of the nation, this House calls for legislation authorising the State and local authorities to acquire land, rural or urban, at every convenient opportunity, such acquisition to be based upon fair compensation.
The development of land ownership by the nation proceeds apace in this country, whatever Government is in power. The process goes on surely, remorselessly, and inevitably, with the general acceptance of all parties, and all that we can do now, in my view, is either to hasten or to retard the process. Two days ago in this House I asked a series of questions for written answers from various Ministers as to the extent to which the public ownership of the land in this country had already been reached, and if I may summarise the answers they show that in England and Wales there is already owned by public authorities 1,560,000 acres of agricultural land, and in Scotland there are 1,108,000 acres already in public ownership; that is, a total of 2,600,000 acres already nationalised. In addition, there are unknown and unascertained figures of the extent of foreshore in public hands. Further, there is road surface land in public ownership, amounting to 653,000 acres, making a total, on these figures alone, of well over 3,000,000 acres. Dr. Addison, now Lord Addison, has collected a vast amount of additional statistics on the subject, which he proposes, I understand, to publish at an early date. He adds the Duchy of Lancaster figures, the Duchy of Cornwall figures, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' ownership, over 500,000 acres, making nearly 3,750,000 acres of the agricultural land of this country already nationalised. In addition to that, there are vast tracts of land in this land in the ownership of public authorities, on which I will say a word or two in a moment.
It is impossible, I understand, to get an exact statement of the extent of agricultural land in this country. Professor Stapledon, after making an exhaustive analysis of the subject, winds up with guesswork. But if we deduct the land

under buildings, railways, mines, and so on, outside urban areas, we have in this country somewhere in the neighbourhood of 7½ to 8 per cent. of the total amount of land in agricultural areas already publicly owned. That has been done without bloodshed, without destroying anybody's religion, without breaking up homes, without any of the serious results with which the Anti-Socialist Union used to scare unreflecting citizens whenever the question of the public ownership of the soil was raised. This land, however, has been acquired in a haphazard way, parcels here, estates there, and this afternoon I should like to subdivide my remarks under three headings—first, the necessity for the acquisition by the State of all the remaining agricultural land; secondly, the necessity for puncturing swollen values of land in urban areas, so that the State or the local authorities may, when they require that land, secure it at a reasonable and not at an extortionate price; thirdly, there is the very much smaller problem of the land adjacent to boroughs, land which has already a high prospective building value.
The policy of the Labour party, as publicly announced, is to secure an enabling Bill, enabling the State or the local authorities under different circumstances to procure land upon reasonable terms. The State should be enabled to purchase its land at a price based upon Schedule A of the Income Tax Returns, and the local authorities, when they desire to purchase land, should not be compelled, as they are now, to state the specific purpose for which they require that land; they should have a general enabling power. But for my part—and I am sure I represent in this respect the views of the vast majority, if not all, of my colleagues on these benches—I say that we must take urgent steps to stop the gross exploitation of local authorities and private citizens that is rampant in our cities and our towns to-day through the high prices charged for land. So long ago as the year 1912 we had a Departmental Committee inquiring into tenant farmers and sales of estates. That Committee was presided over by Lord Haversham, and a majority of the Committee recommended, to quote their own words:
some system which will protect the tenant against dispossession, while at the same time securing to the occupier all the advantages now enjoyed on well managed estates. This,


in our opinion, can be secured by the acquisition and management of landed estates by the State.
That was in 1912, the last Departmental Committee on the subject, and the majority of the signatories of that report were Members of the party opposite. The Haversham Committee went on to point out that the State could purchase in large blocks and could choose its own time, that it could acquire its land much more cheaply than the small purchaser could buy it, that it would save enormous sums in administration, and that it could borrow at lower interest rates. It would leave a tenant's capital free for his business, which, the committee stated:
is primarily agriculture and not landowning.
The committee, further, were strong in their denial that the tenants, or the majority of them, desired to buy the land at all. They went so far as to say that, on the evidence which they had taken from tenant farmers, only three out of the 40 had desired to buy their land:
There is little desire for ownership in itself, and it is only advocated as an alternative to being turned out of his home.
My first witness, therefore, is the Haversham Committee. I come now to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whom I am glad to see on the benches opposite, who is rendering such valuable service to the State in his capacity as chairman of the Forestry Commission.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: Not chairman, but Parliamentary Commissioner.

Mr. Johnston: I should say that no man could better fill the post of chairman. In the Debate on 1st July of this year, my right hon. and gallant Friend, who is a considerable landowner and an ornament to the party opposite, boasted that the Forestry Commission have nationalised over 1,000,000 acres; and he has gone before the Public Accounts Committee and has claimed that the operations of the Forestry Commission were resulting in a profit to the State of over 3 per cent. on the State's investments in forestry. There is a department of landownership which is working at a profit. But he also declared that the condition of the privately-owned woodlands in this country was on the whole "deplorable," and he urged the State purchase of these plantations. I re-

member well how the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to swell visibly with pride as he told of the national parks that he and his colleagues were setting up, one park alone of 50,000 acres in Argyllshire, a park in the Snowdon district and another in the Forest of Dean. My second witness therefore is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
My third witness is the present Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax. When he was Mr. Wood he was Minister of Agriculture. In a speech on 9th December, 1924, he spoke of the obvious deterioration in the capital equipment of the soil, whether in buildings or in drainage, and said that:
Many an occupying owner had sunk his capital in the ownership side and had left nothing for the maintenance side; and he asked, is the nation going to say, 'We cannot watch this process going on?'
He added that within the next 30 or 40 years they would have something like nationalisation by a side wind. My next witness is Lord Bledisloe. He returned from New Zealand and wrote to the "Times" bemoaning the evidence of agricultural decay all around, and particularly the tumbledown condition of farm buildings here and the inadequacy of up-to-date plant. "Obviously," he said, "owners and occupiers are alike destitute of capital, the want being obvious when the roles are combined." Then there is Sir Daniel Hall, than whom no greater authority on agriculture will be quoted in this Debate. Sir Daniel Hall, in an address to the British Association meeting at Nottingham in 1937, called for the use of the land
as a great estate managed by a business corporation, with ample capital to enable it to take a long view about development. Such a plan can only be attained under the national ownership of the land.
Professor C. S. Orwin, the director of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute at Oxford, in his book "The Future of Farming," says:
State ownership and nationalisation of land is no longer a matter of party controversy…Public opinion is moving steadily in the direction of the expropriation of the agricultural landlord by the State. Proposals to this end put forward some five years ago, based solely upon the economic needs of rural industry and without any political bias, have received support from all parties.
Recently there has been issued an elaborate tome on agriculture, under the auspices of Lord Astor and Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, assisted by a staff of experts,


including Sir Robert Greig and Sir Frederick Keeble. They sum up a series of considerations which they describe as "a powerful argument in favour of national ownership of land." Speaking of material advantages of State ownership they mention the borrowing of money cheaply and the possibility of large-scale drainage, and they say that with national ownership it would be possible to avoid the tendency whereby every subsidy given to the State becomes a rent subsidy to the landed interest. In the same volume it is pointed out that there are practical objections to wholesale and immediate nationalisation involving large-scale issues of Government stock, and because of the need for training local commissioners able to take the initiative. So, they say, the change should be brought about gradually and schemes should be devised whereby parcels of land could be transferred to public ownership from time to time in convenient units for administration.
Lastly, if I might, I would put myself forward as a witness. In the area in which I live there has been ever since I remember 4,000 odd acres of the finest agricultural land in central Scotland. Periodically they are under flood. I think that there have been on an average eight floods a year. I have seen cattle washed away, roads washed away, bridges destroyed. This land is rendered useless. It maintains nothing but sea gulls in the winter-time and mosquitoes in the summer. There are 165 riparian occupiers. Of these 165 about 145 were in favour of a co-operative scheme of drainage. All the farmers were in favour of it; every local authority was in favour of it; and most of the proprietors were in favour of it. Only a small minority were against it. They hung up the scheme and nothing could be done. A Bill was passed through the House in 1930 to enable it to be done and to charge the landowners compulsorily for their quota of the benefits they were to receive when the land was brought into use and cultivation. Since then nothing has been done. A diminishing number of recalcitrant owners by one pretext or another have held up the scheme, and it is only in February of next year that the.Secretary of State for Scotland declares that he will be able to get operations started under that 1930 Drainage Act. All these years wasted, thousands of acres of land useless within

20 miles of the City of Glasgow. You cannot raise the foodstuffs, you cannot employ the people; a small handful of recalcitrant proprietors of the land have stood in the way of a great national advantage.
Suppose that it were decided to acquire the ownership of all agricultural land and farm buildings for the nation, what would be the approximate cost and what would be the return? The Labour party proposes purchase on the basis of the returns for Income Tax under Schedule A. That is the net return to the landlord after deduction of allowed charges for maintenance, etc. The number of years purchase would vary according to either the tumbledown or the well-conditioned nature of the properties, and according to the different parts of the country where different values obtain. The only official estimate that I know of in recent years of the value of agricultural land in England and Wales—unfortunately I cannot discover any for Scotland—is to be found in the Agricultural Output Report of the Ministry of Agriculture, published in 1934, as Cmd. Paper 4605. It is there estimated that the total gross rental value of agricultural land, including rough grazing, is £36,700,000, and that is a reduction of 13 per cent. in the previous six years: that land has fallen in value. The capital value, they estimate, was £645,000,000, a decrease of £170,000,000, or 21 per cent. in the preceding six years. In 1931 the average selling value of agricultural farms of all sizes was £18 an acre, a reduction of £6 an acre, or 25 per cent., since the year 1925.
There is a profound truth, I think, in Orwin and Peel's book on "The Tenure of Agricultural Land," in which they say that there is no worse landlord than borrowed money. They estimate, however, that on the 22½ years purchase basis it would cost the State £1,125,000,000 to purchase it, but they admit that this is pure guesswork, and from these figures obviously there must be deducted the value of the land already under public ownership. Other estimates have put the purchase price, not at £1,125,000,000 but at £1,000,000,000; and still other estimates have put it at less. But an agricultural tribunal to meet difficult cases would have no difficulty whatever in assessing fair compensation. Lord Addison, whose view on these


matters we all respect, puts the cost at £1,000,000,000 for buildings, land and woodlands, on a 20 years basis. He declares that it will be necessary to spend £250,000,000 in reconditioning, in draining, in fencing, in putting the land again into the good heart from which it has fallen in recent years. Bonds would have to be issued by the State, but the State can get cheaper money than the private borrower. In return for the bonds we should have a vast national asset. There would merely be a change in the ownership of the bonds. The bonds would be held at a lower rate of interest, and, despite the reconditioning that would have to be done, many authorities have declared that the State would make a profit on the transaction, even as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Forestry Commisison in this House can show that the State makes a profit on its forestry operations, although the private landlord can make none.
Let me turn now to the question of urban land. Many of my hon. Friends who are to speak will deal in more detail with this side of the question. We should like to have an amending Bill which would enable local authorities to purchase land inside urban areas when they require it, without specifying for what purpose they want the land. We should also like to see something in the nature of rating and taxation of site values. The London County Council will shortly be coming to this House with specific proposals designed to that end. I will take London alone. I have here a report issued by the London County Council of its experiences in the years since the War. The average purchase price which the London County Council have been compelled to pay when they buy land for parks, for open spaces for people to breathe in, has been since the War 109 years' purchase. When they buy land for housing they have had to pay on an average 126 years' purchase of the value at which the land is shown for Income Tax purposes. I will give three instances. In Camberwell, for land with a rateable value of £42, they had to pay £8,000, or 190 years' purchase. In Wandsworth, for land rated at £14, they had to pay £9,450, or 675 years' purchase. [Laughter.] The joke is against us. At Woolwich, which is represented by a Member of the Cabinet,

for land of the rateable value of £9, they had to pay £5,563, or 618 years' purchase.
I take it there is no public representative who dare get up in the House and defend an organised system of public plunder and robbery like that. I should like to draw the Minister of Transport into this discussion. Will he, or somebody representing the Government, tell us whether it be the case that there is an estimate in the Ministry to the effect that if the land for the Great North Road development in England and Scotland had been purchased prior to beginning operations to the extent of three miles each side of it, they could have built the road for nothing and had 200 per cent. profit on the deal? If this be approximately correct, as I am assured it is, we are all negligent, we are all responsible for this kind of public plunder which is permitted to go on side by side with every form of expenditure for public purposes in this country. For every £100 we spend somebody thrives while he sleeps; somebody adjacent exacts the last pound of flesh from the public pocket. There remains a third problem which I do not want to examine in detail. It is, in my view, the most difficult of the lot. That is the problem of land outside boroughs and adjacent to them, which has already acquired something in the nature of prospective building site value. My suggestion is that in this case, if commitments have already been entered into by the owners, special consideration could be given to them by the land tribunal, but I should pay nothing for conjectural values. I should purchase it only at agricultural value.
Let us suppose we had nationalisation for agricultural land. What advantages could we be reasonably expected to secure? First, the transfer of parcels of land for public purposes, such as roads, etc., would thereafter be free from protracted negotiations, expensive arbitration, and slow and cumbersome conveyancing. Indeed, conveyancing of land may cost 20 times as much as the transfer of an equal value of War Loan. Secondly, we could have closer land settlement, small holdings could be expedited, and the expenses of valuation and conveyancing could be diminished. Thirdly, afforestation of what are presently private estates could be expedited. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the


Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) will be able to deal with that. Few private owners to-day can keep a forester. When land is sold off to-day nobody wants the woodlands. They are sold at break-up prices. Jobbers or dealers come in and, irrespective of the beauty or the amenity of the countryside, the timber is taken away. But the State never dies. If it owned that land it could use it from the timber point of view to the maximum, and not to the minimum advantage. Again, we would save much expensive administrative machinery presently employed in the assessment and collection of taxes upon property. We could consolidate our land into reasonable administrative units, and we should save considerable estate costs. Many estates are now badly assembled for management. We should preserve our beauty spots and places of historical interest. We should preserve our records. Many local records have been wantonly destroyed. With cheaper money and State ownership we should have better equipment of our farms, timely repairs, and a greater chance of prosperity.
Landlords are no longer able to fulfil their primary function—the only function which ever justified their existence—that is, they were able to claim that they provided the necessary maintenance capital to keep estates in good heart. We should readjust farm boundaries and organise drainage schemes. The agricultural worker would be better housed. We should have better water supplies. The £35,000,000 subsidies which this House is pouring every year into agriculture would not, any part of it, as it does now, disappear into the maw of private landlords. I wonder how many hon. Members who bombard the Minister of Agriculture about tariffs for agriculture have any idea of the interest which city finance has in the prosperity, not of agriculture here, but of our competitors abroad. I wonder how many hon. Members know that in this country there are investments in the Argentine amounting to £440,000,000 and investments overseas amounting to £3,800,000,000. These figures appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 3rd May, 1937. A great mass of that capital is invested in land exploration arid development companies which are competing with our agriculture at home. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
We on this side believe that the State should be the sole owner of the soil. We believe that when the State has become the owner of the soil our agriculture will be treated and regarded as a primary national interest and not, as it is to-day, a mere handmaid for certain almost bankrupt family investment trusts and private landlords whose day has gone. The landlord once had a function in rural Britain. He was a provider of capital for maintenance and development. For reasons that are beyond the scope of to-day's Debate he can no longer fulfil any useful function. He is an anachronism. Many of them, polite and friendly, are doing their best with limited resources, but their day has gone. The time has come, in the overriding public interest, when a system of a few persons owning the land while the many are landless must go, arid for it must be substituted a system of ownership in which we can all be owners through the State, all inheritors in our native land by virtue of our birth and our service to the community.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
while recognising the value of the powers already existing for the State and local authorities to acquire land for essential purposes, this House is of the opinion that the abolition of the private ownership of land would retard its proper development and thus be detrimental to the interests of the nation.
Like all Members of the House, I have listened with interest to the rather melancholy speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). After listening to his survey of agriculture, I have realised, I think for the first time, what that phrase "inspissated gloom" really means. The right hon. Gentleman has called a certain amount of evidence which, he says, is in support of nationalisation. He called the evidence of the Forestry Commission and pointed out that the land which is owned by the Commission makes a profit. He did not point out the converse side of this question, that the Forestry Commission have always carefully avoided the use of those compulsory powers which lay at the basis of the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. In point of fact, the


Forestry Commission have avoided the use of compulsory powers. They have found it possible under the present system to get whatever land they required, at a cheaper rate, probably, than if they had used compulsion, and if there had had to be arbitration on a compulsory basis. I think that bit of evidence is not quite the formidable evidence which, had I been the right hon. Gentleman, I should have adduced as being the core and centre of an argument for land nationalisation.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted statements made by Lord Bledisloe, Lord Halifax and others to the effect that there is a diminution of the capital in the land since the War, but he did not suggest what would be a simple method of dealing with the decrease in capital available for the development of the land. Instead of spending I do not know how many hundreds of millions of pounds upon the purchase of the land by the State—we none of us know how much it would be—it would be far simpler for him to support a very simple little Measure to take the expense of Death Duties off agricultural land. At a cost of £2,000,000 a year he could make it quite possible for the agricultural landlord to play the part which even the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted the agricultural landlord has played in the past in keeping agricultural land upon a proper basis. An hon. Member opposite is entertained by that observation, but I think the country would be very much more entertained by having the thing done simply at a cost of £2,000,000 a year instead of at the enormous expense which I have suggested it would prove, if, of course, we were to have fair compensation, on which I hope to make a few observations later, when I think we shall probably find there is a wide difference of opinion on the benches opposite regarding what is fair compensation, quite apart from the views of any other side of the House.
Before we go into that thorny problem, which is a vital problem, of course, When dealing with land nationalisation, it is only proper that I should remind the House that in spite of all the vicissitudes of agriculture since the War, in spite of the lack of capital and in spite of high taxation, all of which have played their part in making private ownership more

difficult, private ownership has continued to keep its head above water to a very considerable extent. The fact that during the last 20 years there has been an increase in the gross output of agriculture in England and Wales of somewhere about 17 per cent. proves that even where the farmer who owns his own land is in difficulties, and even where the landlord is hard pressed for maintenance costs, nevertheless it has been possible, and it still is possible, for the produce of the land to be increased year by year and under a system which is still working, and working with a degree of success, from the point of view of the nation itself.
I may remind the right hon. Gentleman of what one branch of agriculture alone, wheat growing, has done with a little judicious assistance, under the present system, and without tearing that system to atoms. Since the right hon. Gentleman and his friends so fortunately retired from the Front Bench, somewhere about 600,000 more acres have been put under wheat alone. I know that there are other cereal crops which are doing badly, but I would remind hon. Members opposite that though they talk nationalisation till they are black in the face, and though they nationalise the whole of the land, that will not of necessity bring one more acre under cultivation for oats and barley, and those are the two branches of the agricultural industry which are suffering most at the present time. The success of barley growing depends to some extent upon the consumption of beer, and if the right hon. Gentleman and his friends started to nationalise all round, and did destroy the credit of the country, as they tried to do between 1929 and 1931—[Interruption.] I know that what happened only seven years ago is rather a sore point with hon. Members opposite, but that will not prevent them from doing it. It is as well to remind them that as a result of those two years of Socialism—well semi-Socialism: they did their best—there was a reduction in the quantity of beer drunk, and if that condition of affairs were repeated it would have an even worse effect upon barley growers at the present time. Knowing how Scotland has been affected, I waited with some interest to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would have to say about the oats problem. He indulged in a very


wide survey, but he did not come down in detail to any branch of agriculture. I was hoping that at any rate he would tell me in what way the nationalisation of agriculture would bring back the principal consumers of oats, that is horses—are they going to do away with the tractor?—because that is the only way in which one could really bring back oat production on a large scale in this country.
Coming to the more general lines of the subject, it is true that in the course of the past 20 years and, if you like, under the present system, a fair amount of agricultural land has gone out of cultivation, but if we look at the figures we shall realise how great are the powers which exist under present conditions for local authorities and the State to acquire land. During the period from January, 1927, to December, 1936, somewhere about 809,000 acres of land went out of cultivation in England and Wales alone. During the same period, and under the powers which exist to-day, no less than 460,000 acres were taken for building and development, the Forestry Commissioners took 194,000 acres for woodlands, 25,000 acres were taken for allotments, 108,000 acres for sports grounds, 81,000 acres for miscellaneous purposes—the building of aerodromes and so on—and another 77,000 went to waste.
During the last 10 years in which we can note how land has either come into cultivation or gone out of cultivation in this country we find that 946,000 acres have been taken out of cultivation for the purposes I have mentioned, and as the whole of the cultivated land in England and Wales was reduced only by about 800,000 acres it is true to say that, in spite of all the difficulties the landowners and others have had to face, if it had not been for the cultivated land taken by the State and local authorities during those years there would to-day have been an increase in the area of land under cultivation. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head, but, after all, if 800,000 is taken from 940,000 there is a balance of 140,000 on the other side, and I fail to see how any mathematical gymnastics can get away from that salient figure, which is a fact and not a theory.
I should like to come next to the question of compensation. Let us suppose that in spite of all arguments the other way the State does take over the land

of the country as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman told us that there would be compensation, and so far as I could gather from his speech it would be based upon the net return to the landlords in rent. Does the right hon. Gentleman speak for his party in saying that? I have before me certain statements made not so very long ago by other right hon. Gentlemen who, if I may say so, are as prominent in the party opposite as is my right hon. Friend. I have a speech by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) which appeared in "Forward" on 25th September last year which says:
Compensation charges can be done away with as a burden by raising a capital levy on the same lines as the capital levy proposed by the Labour party after the War.
I pass on to a speech by Mr. George Dallas, chairman of the Labour Party Executive, at Lancaster last year. Possibly the heady air of Lancashire had rather gone to his head. He said:
You cannot go into a question like that [compensation] to-day. The best way is to issue to the landowners bonds and then if afterwards you want to relieve them of the money you have given them it is the simplest thing in the world to get it back by Income Tax or Super-tax.
An excellent idea; but it did not seem to me that in the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon he either gave or attempted to give an impression to the House that were fair compensation, based on the net rents to the landlords, given to the landlords in return for the nationalisation of the land, that by some hole-and-corner method his party would in some way or another take out of their pockets the money which had been received from the State. I do not know what else than a hole-and-corner method hon. Members would call it. I can understand the view which is expressed in certain quarters and held by certain hon. Members opposite that compensation, what they would call unearned increment, ought not to exist at all, and that they do not propose to give compensation, and I can understand the view of those who say that there ought to be compensation on the basis of general market values, but what I cannot understand, and what alarms the country more than anything else, is to find the party talking with two voices at once. When they are in the House of Commons they say, "Oh, yes, fair compensation," but when they are


facing what may be rather a lively and enthusiastic meeting of landless men somewhere in the country they say, "Oh, it is all right. We will give them compensation but we will use the capital levy or a special Surtax or a special Income Tax to make certain that these landowners' bonds are not worth the paper they are written on."

Mr. Johnston: I think there is about a limit to this kind of thing. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is no excuse for that statement, as it is quite baseless. The official programme and policy of the party has been issued stating things in clear and explicit words, and he ought to be good enough to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Raikes: One statement which I have just quoted was made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and the other was by Mr. George Dallas, who is supposed to be the greatest agricultural expert in the party opposite. I am not in the least prepared to withdraw what I have said and I am prepared—

Mr. Johnston: Contemptible.

Mr. Raikes: —that the matter should be judged by those words, which are not mine but are the words of certain people who explain in the country the policy of the Labour party.
Suppose the land were nationalised; two classes of person would be affected, in the first place. The ordinary tenant would become the tenant of the State instead of the tenant of a landlord. There is also the owner-occupier who, in those circumstances, would also have become the tenant of the State. The present tenant has the advantage that his landlord is probably friendly, and that if he is a good worker he can change his farm and go to work elsewhere. Once he had become the servant of the State, and once one of the agricultural boards which appear in the Labour policy on agriculture but which have not been mentioned to-day, operating, as they must, from Whitehall, decides, rightly or wrongly, not to approve of the methods by which the tenant is tilling his own ground, that tenant has to go out of agriculture for ever, because there is no alternative. If he has made an enemy of one official, he is done for, and his life's work is over.
We have not been told what sort of rent would be charged by the State upon

the change-over from present conditions to State ownership. If it is to be fair compensation, interest will have to be paid upon the landowners' bonds, but in that case the tenant will get no reduction in rent. There is at present no authentic figure of the actual amount of the rent that owners are getting, but the nearest figure is that which is quoted in Lord Astor's book. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not object to that figure, which suggests that to-day the landlords get rent which represents about 2½ per cent. interest on the value of the land. At the change-over it is not likely that the rent of the tenant would be reduced. Indeed, there would probably be an endeavour to put it up, in order to get it on the level with the general percentage charged on other businesses.
We have not heard much about the owner-occupier this afternoon, the man who has bought his own land, very likely after he has saved, worked and slaved in order to do so. In spite of some of the things which have been said from the opposite side of the House, there are many men who take a pride in ownership and long for the day when they can own their own property, just as there are many men in the poorest working-class districts of London and elsewhere who long to become owners of their own houses. What happens to the owner-occupier after the nationalisation of the land? He suddenly finds himself a tenant again, only now a tenant of the State. He is not told what his compensation is to be, and the view might very well be adopted that he ought not to have paid so much for the land under the capitalist system, and that, therefore, he would receive half; but we do not know. Perhaps we shall have some official statement on that point concerning the man who has sacrificed for years in order to become the owner of his land.
No real argument has been adduced up to now to justify the destroying of a system which, for all its weaknesses, has given, and as time goes on gives more, opportunity for private individuals to become owners of their own land. The old saying that private possession turns sand into gold is not yet dead in this country, even in the twentieth century. I hope that the Motion will be heavily defeated, and treated with the contempt which it deserves.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sorry that in the course of the Debate heat has arisen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). We are trying to understand the difference between the policy announced by him at that Box and the old Socialist policy which I always thought was professed by Socialists in this House. I would like to get this matter cleared up. There is no need to have any hostility about it. I believed that the Socialist policy was founded on Mr. G. D. H. Cole. If it is not, I shall no doubt be corrected. I see some hon. Members opposite who, I believe, are devoted followers of Mr. G. D. H. Cole. The policy of Mr. Cole is:
No Socialist can recognise any claim by private owners to receive back in some other form the value of their property when the public takes it over. Our object is expropriation.
Has that policy been entirely thrown over? If so, we want to know. There is no need for anybody to be annoyed about it. If that policy has been wiped out, let us realise that the Socialist party no longer believe in real land nationalisation as we have always understood it.
This question of expropriation or compensation was gone into by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) at the Labour Party Conference in 1935. I do not think that he has yet been turned out from among the leaders of the Socialist party, but I may find in my newspapers to-morrow morning that he has been. At that time he said, when discussing whether there was to be compensation or confiscation:
The whole blessed thing is a matter of expediency. You have to ask yourselves whether it is worth while urging a policy you want at a cost of preventing yourselves from being politically competent to put it into force.
I am sorry if I do not fully understand the rather curious phrases used by the right hon. Gentleman, but that was his way of saying that he wanted confiscation but would try to get it, first of all, with compensation. Later, as Mr. George Dallas explained, they would make that compensation nugatory. That may be politically expedient, but it is a very dishonest way of approaching the subject. The people of this country ought to be

told exactly what the Socialist party want to do with the land. Do they want to take it over and pay its equivalent value, or are they trying to get something for nothing? That is what we want to know.

Mr. Gallacher: Oh!

Mr. Turton: I know what is wanted by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He is not a member of the Socialist party. He is a Communist, and his policy is perfectly clear. He comes here and tells it to the House. It is expropriation. He says that the land should belong to the Communist party. I suppose that he would be one of the largest landowners.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member is making a statement about my policy; would he be good enough to quote from me to justify his statement?

Mr. Turton: I have not made a special study of the policy of the hon. Gentleman, but I will do so when he gets into power and will read what his policy will be, we may then have an opportunity of discussing his policy. What I have referred to is the published policy of the Socialist party.

Mr. Johnston: Published where?

Mr. Turton: In "Socialist Control of Industry."

Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Member is now taking the attitude that he does not know my policy will he kindly withdraw the remarks?

Mr. Turton: I understand the hon. Member's policy to be that which the Communist party profess throughout the world, if he is a member of the Communist International. I understand that it lays down a policy for confiscating land. If there is some new policy I am quite ready to read what the hon. Member has to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quote."] That policy is the collectivisation of land, which should all belong to the Soviet, as in Russia. That is the Communist party's policy on land, and it has been tried out in Russia at a cost of tremendous misery to everybody involved. We are not concerned with Communist party policy, but are discussing the Socialist policy in regard to the land. I have been quoting from "Socialist Control of Industry," by G. D. H. Cole, and from


the proceedings of the Labour Party Conference. I have also read the pamphlet of their party upon their new land policy.

Mr. Johnston: The official policy of the Labour party upon the question of agriculture was passed at the annual conference of the party held at Leicester in October, 1932. I should think that about 1,000,000 copies of this policy have been distributed in the length and breadth of the land, but I hold a copy of it in my hand and I shall be glad to give the hon. Member a reading of it. Meanwhile, would he take it from me that, whatever Mr. Cole or other individuals may say, the policy of the party is set forth at the annual conference of the party, and, in regard to land, is for a fair compensation to be paid to existing owners.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman refers me to a policy passed in 1932, but what I quoted from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney was said in 1935 at an official Labour Party Conference. He said it was a question of expediency as to whether you first asked for compensation or for confiscation. He made it quite clear in that speech, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will remember it. If not, perhaps he will refresh his memory by reading the report of the proceedings.

Mr. Montague: My right hon. Friend was supporting compensation in that speech.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman said that they wanted confiscation but were asking for compensation. He said, "The whole blessed thing is a matter of expediency." We cannot really have a great party in the State led by political expediency. [Laughter.] If hon. Members laugh because they are called a great party in the State, that is not my fault.
Let us get back to the question of nationalisation of the land. Hon. Members appear to be adopting the policy of Lord Astor and Mr. Seebohm Rowntree. I think they will agree that the drafting of the Motion is on all fours with the recommendation made in that book that there should be a slow and gradual extension of the power of local authorities and of the State in the purchase of land up and down the country at its cost. I

will ask the House to consider what advantage the landlord gets out of the land. There was one remark made by the right hon. Gentleman which slightly annoyed me, although I did not interrupt him, as I hoped to be able to speak on the matter. I am not quite as heated as he is, and I did not rise. He suggested that the subsidy paid to agriculture had gone into the pockets of the landowners and that the subsidy amounted to £35,000,000. I understand that the amount of the subsidy is in fact £14,500,000, but that small inaccuracy, being only 50 per cent. wrong, has been passed over.
Let us consider the position of the ordinary agricultural landowner. Let me be frank with the House. Here I am, an owner of land for nine years. I employed an agent for seven years, and for two years I have managed it for myself. I have kept accurate costings during all that time. I looked them up last week-end. Taking a typical cottage-holding, what was the rent received and what was the cost of repairs on that holding? I take first of all one holding. The rent was £5 a year, for a cottage and 1.3 acres. The cost of the repairs in the nine years has been £47 1s. 3d. and the rent received therefore was £2 1s. 3d. less than the cost of repairs. When the matter was brought to my attention the rent was raised to £6 upon a change of tenancy. Take the case of a farm of 154 acres, with a house, the rent is £100, tithe is £19, and the repairs in the nine years have cost £268 9s. 7½d. Those were just the ordinary repairs, without provision for improved cow byres, which actually have come in this year, and is not included in the nine years. On an ordinary average estate, the cottage holding has cost for repairs very nearly the level of the rent, while in the case of agricultural land the cost of repairs has been between 30 and 37 per cent. of the rent. Sir William Dampier's figures agree entirely with the figures from my own estate book, except that he does not include the figures for a cottage holding, where, owing to the high increase of building costs, the ownership is much more uneconomic.
It can be said generally that the rent which landlords are getting from their land varies from about 2 to 2¾ per cent. That is not rent in respect of mere derelict land; it is rent on improvements. The annual value of uncultivated land is, I


should say, about 1s. an acre, that is to say, merely its value for the sake of the rabbiting. What farmers pay rent for is the buildings, the ditches, the fences and so on, and at the present time the yield is about 2¼ per cent. Nevertheless, people are still buying land. Their interest, and the interest of some of us who have inherited land, is not in making money out of the land, but in regarding the land as a charge to be handed down, and in looking after the people on the land. There is no other explanation of the fact that people buy agricultural land in these days except that they regard it as a charge, that they enjoy caring after the land, and that they have a deep interest in agriculture. It is said that that can be better done by the State or by local authorities—

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member has been explaining that a landlord gets out of the ownership of land far less than he would get from the investment of a corresponding amount of capital elsewhere, and that what he is really interested in is the social pleasure, if I may put it in that way, of looking after the land. Is the hon. Member, then, saying to the House that all this question of the difference between fair compensation and expropriation is really quite beside the point, and that the landlords are not really interested in that at all, but only in the social position which they occupy by reason of their ownership of land?

Mr. Turton: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is so well versed in money matters that he cannot understand any incentive but a money incentive. What I was trying to point out to the House was that it is not the lure of money that causes people to continue to own land, but the interest and delight in looking after the land and improving it. Everyone who becomes an owner of land wants to hand on that land in a better condition than that in which he found it. Expropriation would mean that he could not do that. What would happen if the State or the local authorities took over the land? This has been done before. The right hon. Gentleman himself gave instances of the State ownership of land. He mentioned the successful instance of the Forestry Commission, who own 1,000,000 acres. But, in the first place, the Forestry Commission's land is not

agricultural land; and, secondly, they are, I believe I am right in saying, in the fortunate position of paying no Death Duties and no taxes at all upon their land, so that they are in rather a different position from the private owner of land. But take the case of a body with which hon. Members opposite are well conversant. The co-operative societies own a great deal of land, and I have here the report of the Co-operative Congress for 1937 which shows the result of their management of land. It shows that on 56,000 acres in three years they lost £75,000. That is Socialism in practice, and—for I want to give credit where credit is due—the co-operatives are as efficient as any Socialists will ever be. Again, the local authorities have used the Small Holdings Act, and their loss to date on that branch of agriculture is £846,000. It has riot been a profitable venture.
The ownership of land by the State has never yet been profitable. In Yorkshire we had an example of it, after the War, in the Patrington estate. That estate consisted of 2,300 acres of good, strong warp land, which was used for 10 years as an experiment in State farming. In 1927 that estate had to be closed down, all the men had to be turned off, and the land went derelict, because huge losses were being made by the State in that farming venture. That is the only really big example that we have had in this country of the State management of land, and the party opposite wish it to be repeated up and down the country. I ask the House to be cautious in considering this policy of nationalisation. There has been in the last few years a change of tendency in land ownership. Just before the War, something like one-tenth of our agricultural land was owned by owner-occupiers. The proportion has increased by now from one-tenth to one-third—a very big increase. The figure of one-third is taken from Lord Astor's book. How are these men to be treated? That is the crux of the matter. The man who in 1920 invested all his savings in land cannot be treated, on the Socialistic policy of the right hon. Gentleman, by compensating him on the basis of Schedule A, because there is no Schedule A assessment on that land; and if you compensate him on the basis of Schedule B, you are going to take his land for very nearly nothing, because, owing to the serious condition of


farming, his Schedule B assessment will be almost nil.
Those men are the backbone of England. It should be the object of this House to increase the number of owner-occupiers in the country. We want more smallholdings owned by their occupiers, and I cannot see why, if agriculture is made prosperous, that should not be a feasible policy. Then, instead of large areas of land owned by one landlord, you would have a number of smallholdings on the property, as used to be the case at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The change which has taken place in English agriculture has largely been a turning of these smallholdings into larger farms. That has not been for the good of the countryside or of the strength of England. Men have left the countryside because they could not have smallholdings. To nationalise the land would make matters even worse. There would be even fewer smallholdings. Of course, the larger the holding, the more economic it is. The right hon. Gentleman said that we should have to alter the boundaries, and the alteration of boundaries always means that the farms become larger and more mechanised, and fewer men are kept on the land. The policy of land nationalisation will drive men from the land at a time when everyone who cares for agriculture is trying to draw more men towards it.
I find it very hard to understand the Socialist party's professed sympathy with agriculture. Last night at a late hour we were being shown monster potatoes from one area in Lincolnshire, and we had a very eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), but he never suggested, and the Socialist party never suggested, that there is anything wrong in the fact that these monster potatoes were being sold by his farmers at £4 a ton and were being retailed in London at £14 a ton. The Socialist party now say that the great cure for agriculture is that the State should own the land. I sometimes read that the Socialist party have a policy of guaranteed prices for agriculture, but I believe they are so torn and twisted by divisions among themselves that they dare not offer to put down a Motion in the House to that effect. I invite them to do so. They always win in the Ballot, but we never hear anything about their agricultural policy. This is

a brave attempt by the right hon. Gentleman to bring in Lord Astor's policy of land nationalisation, but it is not going to do any good to agriculture. Agriculture is in a very serious position at the present time, and we do not want any change that will make rents higher, as will be the case with land nationalisation, because the costs of administration are bound to be higher. We want some form of price insurance in agriculture, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman, who, I recognise, has great ability, to direct his interest in agriculture to this question of price insurance or guaranteed prices.

Mr. Johnston: As the hon. Member refers directly to me, may I ask him if he has never done me the credit of listening to the questions which I have put perpetually in this House on exactly that point?

Mr. Turton: It is because I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's questions that I would like him to introduce a Motion on the subject, instead of harking back to a policy which has had to be altered a great deal during the last two years, and advocating a milk-and-water variety of land nationalisation as proposed by Lord Astor. What is going to be the cost of the administration? What are you going to pay the men who will have to look after the nationalised land all over the country? At the present time the cost of land agency work comes out at round about 1s. an acre, but if you are going to follow the example of every other piece of Socialism, like the marketing boards, and give a man, not, as one would expect, from £600 to £1,000 a year, but £5,000 or £7,000, as was done by the Socialist party when they were in power—they gave £7,000 a year to Sir Ernest Gowers when they brought in their Coal Mines Commission in 1930—if that is to be the rate, the result of this Motion, if it is passed, will be that rents will go up all over the country and owner-occupiers will be driven out of their holdings.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I should like, at the outset, to say that no better circumstance could have prevailed for a Debate such as the one we are having to-day. Last week this House was in a very excited mood over the question of a National


Register, and I think the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to the Amendment were rather anxious to make that Register more compulsive than has been suggested by the Government.

Mr. Turton: I did not say that. I said that I wanted it to be voluntary and effective.

Mr. MacLaren: At any rate, their desire is that the manhood of the State should be enrolled, so that we should know what are the human resources that we have ready to defend the country if an emergency should arise. Why do we want to know the number of men we have ready in the event of war? It is to defend what? The land. We can in this House, if need be, conscript every man in this country to defend the land; but when it comes to asking, right under the shadow of that Debate, that the men of this land shall be not merely the conscript defenders of it but the participators in it—Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irishmen and Welshmen, in the real sense that they have an interest in it, we find that there are all sorts of reasons why that should not be. It would be a bad day for recruiting men into the Army if they read the speeches delivered here to-day I remember, during the last War, posters on the walls depicting a Highlander pointing to a beautiful glen behind him and saying, "Is this not worth fighting for?"—the suggestion being that it is the people's own land. They went further, and put posters all over the hoardings with the words in large type: "Your King and your country need you."
If this is the country of the people, let us establish the fact by nationalising the land of this country. There is no answer to that. It is no good saying, "Rise and sweep all the men into the Army for the defence of the country," and then saying to them, "After all, you are merely trespassers on the land of the country." You cannot play with the people like this much longer. Either this is the land of the people or the people are trespassers. Recently we heard hon. Members stand up in this House and say that it is dangerous that people should be allowed to walk more freely about the country. It is not dangerous to defend it; only to go about on it. The week before last, when we were discussing the Access to Mountains Bill, all the landlords were in the House. A good many of them are

here to-day. When we have a Debate on the Special Areas or unemployment the benches are empty; but here they are now.

Mr. Raikes: I would remind the hon. Member that I spoke in favour of that particular Measure.

Mr. MacLaren: I know the hon. Member did, and I thought that day, "My dear old friend is progressing." But today the hon. Member has gone back. I am just opening in this way, because I think it is well, now that we are all rather on the move for the defence of the nation, that we should remind the people of the nation how much in fact they are the owners of the nation.
On the question of whether we should have nationalisation of the land or private ownership of the land, there should be a simple test, and that is: under what system do we derive the most from the land? If there is anything that is terrifying to any serious student in our time, it is to observe that in almost every country in the world, except, strangely enough, the dictatorship countries, there is a tendency for the human population to leave the land. There is also another tendency. It is that people do not look upon the land as the basis and hope of human society, but as the medium through which they can acquire vast fortunes, irrespective of the condition in which they leave the land when they have finished with it. You see this in Australia and in the United States. These vast countries are being destroyed by the ruthless misuse of this great gift of God; and then people leave it, and pass on to destroy some other virgin land.
This land question is more than a mere political question. It is at the bottom of human existence. Nay, more than that, without an attachment to the
land civilisation is doomed. We in England could not think of a Shakespeare without thinking in terms of an attachment to the land of England. We could not think of Robert Burns without thinking in terms of the same attachment to the land of Scotland. The uprooting of people from the land means a spiritual loss to civilisation, and where people are driven from the country into this artificial civilisation of the towns it is a false existence. We hear on all sides of the decay of the family,


but we observe that on this as upon other basic problems affecting the future of society our discussions are vague and superficial. Listening to Debates in this House one begins to wonder if fundamental thinking is an art of the past. The lives we live show the same thing. The art of the hand is going out; the device of the machine is taking its place. That is a danger to this or any other country.
It is of the greatest importance that we in this House at least should turn our attention to this question, not merely the matter of who owns the land or who does not—although that is very important—but what is the effect of our misuse of the land on our people in general; what is the spiritual effect of this constant divorcement of our people from the land? Surely there is not a landowner in this House who will not agree with me that this fair country called Great Britain, one of the fairest gems on the face of the earth from the point of view of land, is not being used to the extent that it ought to be used. It is not breeding, as it should, as fine a race as you will find in any other part of the world. There is no landowner in this House but admits that. Then why is it? It is too late in the day to deal with the historical analysis behind all this; I will say only that one cannot turn over the pages of the history of our country without feeling shocked and shamed at the developments which have led to the present position in regard to landowning in this country. The history of this country is sullied by the very sad way in which the average countryman in this country has been treated—as a serf, sometimes worse—and the land, not merely in the hands of laymen but in the hands of Churchmen, has been used not so much as a basis for life, for spiritual development, but as a means of extorting fortunes and livings out of the poor. It is time to turn away from this. England is not worth our calling upon one man to defend it if it is still to be a country where 2,000,000 or more are to form a hard core of unemployment in a land which in natural elements is rich beyond the dreams of men.
The Motion we are discussing to-day, if I may say so quite frankly, gives me very great doubt. We are dealing with three types of land: agricultural land, what my

right hon. Friend would call quasi-urban land around towns, and urban land. I have never at any time—and I say this to my right hon. Friend with due respect and regard for the years of effort he has put into this work—in my analysis of this problem been able to differentiate between agricultural land and urban land. It simply cannot be done. I have been in that technical fight far too long. When does agricultural land begin and urban land end? It cannot be defined. Probably, if it could, in a rough-and-ready way we might, in order to expedite the passage of the land from private ownership to the ownership of the State, say, "We will compromise; leave this to agriculture, pay a fair price for that, and proceed to deal with urban land." But I want to say this in fairness to the landowner. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said—I know it is true—there are many men owning land in this country who are not making a fortune out of it—far from it—but have a sentimental attachment to the land. Suppose you have such a landowner as that throwing out his energy, preserving his estate, looking after his labourers, seeing that his house is in good condition; he is subject to purchase at an arbitration price.
Take the land in the urban area. It is not going to be subject, under this Motion, to purchase at all; it is going to be subject to a squeezing process of rating and taxation. If you are going to deal with landlords in the main you had better deal with them by the same process. We cannot define the area of agricultural land; it cannot be done. It is becoming ever more difficult in view of modern developments, such as the vast expenditure of public money on new bridges, new roads, great public developments, passing right up and down the country. It is very difficult to know where agricultural land value begins and urban land value ends. My right hon. Friend said himself that the quasi-urban land was indeed the most serious part of his problem. Of course it is. When you begin to segregate land in this way according to its functions you inevitably come into difficulties of the kind he had in mind when you propose transferring it to State ownership. It is better to look upon land quite irrespective of the uses to which it is put and ascertain the site value of the land, whether it is used for urban or agricultural purposes


or any other purposes. Once and for all, that settles the question of definition.
Ascertain the rental value or what the landowner would expect to receive from year to year for the rental of the land, free from all improvements, and proceed to deal with it by way of taxation and rating. If you are going to rate and tax the urban landowner, it would clarify the situation to extend the practice beyond the boundary of what is called agricultural land. In ascertaining the site value or the rental value of the land you are ascertaining only the value attaching to that land by virtue of the presence of the demand of the community round about it. It would be a sad day—and I say this with a certain amount of regret—for the Labour and Socialist movement of Great Britain to go back on the old demand that it made in its more virile youth, that the social value attaching to land should go back to the community who made it and that no compensation should ever be asked by or paid to any landowner for the value which he personally never made. I would warn the House, because on this matter I am very definite and determined, and will fight, if need be, against any attempt to raise public funds to pay for a value which is created by the community and at the same time call upon the community to pay for the value which it has created. It is immoral, it is not honest, it is not frank.
From the benches opposite we have heard of proposals that the land should be divided into more smallholdings. I agree. Nothing would please me better than to see the land of this country being used by having men living on it, even if they were only growing their own food and living their own lives on their own holdings, if you like, in co-operation with others, as is done in Denmark. Nothing would give hon. Members on this side of the House greater pleasure than to witness that prospect, but who is it that is stopping us from getting the land? Who is hindering us? Look at the prices which are asked for land when it is wanted for smallholdings. What happens? As soon as any corporation makes a move to get land outside, or contiguous to, a city for smallholdings, it is called upon to pay extortionate prices; even whether it is for smallholdings or for any other form of agricultural development. Once the landowner—and I do not blame him because

the situation is such that it encourages him to act in such a way—knows that there is going to be a national move to develop smallholdings, or any agricultural development, naturally he is waiting there. He does not raise the price of his land. He does not do it automatically, it is done for him the moment the national movement is set on foot.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Member suggesting that agricultural land sold for smallholdings under the 1923 Act is not being sold at a proper price? In Yorkshire the price has been between £20 and £30 an acre.

Mr. MacLaren: Land required for smallholdings has been very dear and difficult to get. The price has been very high. Whenever land is acquired for smallholdings or allotments, we find the price is very high. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That is so. I can turn it up; I do not want to do it because I do not like boring the House.

Mr. Loftus: The hon. Member said that "whenever land is acquired for smallholdings." Does he mean occasionally. He used the phrase as a generalisation. I know that in Suffolk we bought smallholdings at a very cheap price indeed.

Mr. MacLaren: Probably you did, but I think you will find that if you try to convert a farm into smallholdings the price you would have to pay would be higher than the price would be if you were merely using the land as a farm. I have illustrations here of prices paid for land for allotments.

Mr. Turton: Allotments are usually around the towns, whereas smallholdings are agricultural.

Mr. MacLaren: I know, but the same thing prevails, because, if there is a demand for the more extensive use of land, it naturally registers the rental value of it. The thing is scientific. Questions have been raised to-day with regard to farming wheat, and these questions were out of order, if I may say so. Other matters raised were something like this: Some prominent Labour men are ready to confiscate. Mr. G. D. H. Cole, we were told, stood for confiscation. I do not like the word "confiscation," but I must say, in deference to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it was not really the Labour party who introduced confiscation. I understand that God made the


land for the people, but the people have not got it. How did they lose it? Were the people compensated? I remember that my grandmother, who was very Irish, used to remind me when I went to Mass on Sunday morning that God made the land for the people but she said, "It is not God who comes round for the rent on Monday morning." By what device did the present owners come into possession of the land? We know perfectly well that they confiscated the land from their fellow men. Some will say that it is moral to take land without paying a halfpenny for it. If the Labour party said that I would admire them more than I do now because it would be bringing back to the people that which in the past was taken from them. There is no confiscation about that.
Another Labour leader is supposed to have said, "We will pay these Johnnies for the land, and then we will wait for the next Budget when we will sweat the compensation out of them by levying taxes." But that is what we do now. We have an Income Tax system which takes no regard of how a man gets his money. He may have sold property to the State for which he has received compensation, but the Exchequer does not say, "Is your income derivable from compensation from the State"? Not at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sends his sleuth-hounds to see how much he has got and then sweats him for Income Tax, so I do not see that there need be any weeping or tears over that.
I am glad that this Debate is taking place to-day, because it brings us back to the fundamental question of the land and its relationship to other economic activities in society. I am somewhat tolerated in this House for constantly concentrating on this land question. I do so because, as I said at the beginning, I do not think it is possible, even with the best designs or intentions in the world, to have a stable, worthy human society if it is divorced from its right to use the land in which it lives. I believe that the unhindered enjoyment of the land by the people is the basis of the truly just state of society. We have not got that. We are bound to have the opposite, if land is held out of use, millions of opportunities in the land locked up, and on the very same land men without jobs.

Land closed against human use means the Employment Exchange open to hand out doles. If you will not solve the unemployment problem by opening God's opportunities so that men can use the labour power in their bodies to gratify their human desires, then go on preserving your historic monopolies which lock the door of the storehouse of life against human endeavour. Go on doing that, and as sure as day follows night unemployment will go on and increase in volume, and the cost of keeping it alive or the cost of keeping your unemployed from bursting into revolution will go up.
We have seen Government after Government in this House crumbling in face of the menace of unemployment. Your unemployment problem is based on the present land system, and the slums that infest every city in this country to-day are attributable to the land system. We talked about cancer the other day, and how is pervades the poorer sections of the community rather than the well-to-do. Probably there is some exaggeration even in that, but we have the Ministry of Health pouring out millions of pounds in this country to deal with preventable diseases which are bred by the very disease of the slums. All of this is due to the land system in this country. This land question is a comprehensive matter. There is no economic problem affecting mankind which is not traceable to the basic cause of the withholding of the rights of men to the use of land. It is for that reason—though I may not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's formulated Motion—that I welcome this Debate to-day. I would to God that men would see a little more ahead than their particular private interests and would see that fundamentally we were all the creation of God's hand, and that we all have equal rights to the great storehouses he has provided for us—sunshine, water and land. Let no body of men stand in the way of the use of these God-given opportunities. I must not go further, because sometimes this matter brings one dangerously near philosophic and religious conceptions of life itself. I have said what I have said in the hope that the House will understand a little more clearly why some of us on this side are so intense and so sincere in regard to this basic question of the rights of men to use their own land.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Owen Evans: I have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), knowing as I do the deep interest he has taken in the study of the land question. This was a live question in the early days. When I heard him say, "God made the land for the people," it brought back to my mind the time when we used to sing that at political meetings, in order to bring home to the people the truth that the land did belong to them, that those who administer it are only trustees for the people, and that if it can be shown at any time that they are not good trustees and not doing their very best in the trusteeship which they are exercising, something else must be done. At one stage of my hon. Friend's speech I felt like saying once more: "God made the land for the people."
We have had two speeches from the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) advised the House to be very cautious in accepting the Motion. The Motion itself is an extremely cautious one. The spirit of gradualness permeates it from beginning to end. It recognises, as it must recognise, that this problem is an extremely complex and difficult one. The speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment were typically diehard speeches. They take pride in the fact that they are good old Tories, and they stand up, just as they did before 1914, for the rights of the landlords against the rights of the people. But I suspect that if we had a frank debate and hon. Members opposite were free to speak their minds openly and honestly, we should not have many speeches such as we have heard from the two hon. Members.
Things have advanced a great deal since 1914. The land question is as alive to-day as it was then, and it comes before us to-day in an extremely acute form. I was interested to hear some of the debating points of the hon. Member for South-East Essex with regard to compensation. He seemed to enjoy himself in quoting statements made by members of the Labour party, others who are not now members of the Labour party, others who belong to what is known as the common front, and also others who do not belong to any

party, as to what measure of compensation should be paid. I am not going to be frightened by the question of nationalisation because of any fear that reasonable, equitable, just compensation will not be paid to those whose property is taken away. We know that every day in this country nationalisation is taking place. Every day some land is taken by agreement, by negotiation, or, failing agreement, by negotiation the landlord is compulsorily deprived of his land in the interests of the community. We on this side of the House believe that we can rely upon the good sense of the House when this question comes before it to lay down principles of compensation which are fair and equitable.
Another point which was raised by the hon. Member was that of the owner-occupier. He asked what was to become of the owner-occupier. I am sure the right hon. Member who moved the Motion was right when he said that there are remarkably few farmers to-day who want to become owner-occupiers. From his own personal knowledge, and I agree with him, farmers to-day will become owner-occupiers only in order to save themselves from having to leave their homes. We believe that it is not for them to supply the fixed capital for agriculture; in fact they cannot do so. The best they can do is to provide the working capital of the industry. Surely, the owner-occupier would not be worse off under a system of State ownership than he is under the present system. With regard to smallholdings, why should there be fewer under a system of nationalisation? It all depends on policy as to what is the best policy for developing and using the land under any system, whether private or public ownership. If smallholdings are good for the country and can produce food, especially certain kinds of food, then they have as good a chance, if not a greater chance, under the public ownership system than at the present time.
I noticed that the two hon. Members who supported the Amendment carefully fought shy of the question of the valuation of urban land. Remarkable figures were supplied by the right hon. Gentleman. When one hears the fantastic figures that are being paid for land alongside roads built at the expense of the community, one wonders how long this House is going


to tolerate it. This is an old question. It was raised by the Liberal party in 1910, and still we are at it. Hon. Members opposite talk about expropriating the landlord. The landlords are expropriating the community time after time. I challenge anyone to say that it is a fair and just system to the community that these people should be able to take value which has not been made by them but by the community.
I am not afraid of nationalisation, and I would ask whether, in face of the opinions quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, hon. Members opposite believe that they can get away with it. If so, they are mistaken. This question of land nationalisation will gradually become more alive and more potent in the public mind as time goes on. I do not belong to that school which considers that nationalisation in itself and for the mere purpose of nationalisation is in any way desirable. To me it is purely a question of expediency. I would put htis point to the Government. We have a lot of patchwork in connection with agriculture, touching this and touching that, a subsidy here and a subsidy there, and I would ask the Minister who replies, how the Government are going to decide upon a long-term policy in agriculture without knowing the facts regarding it.
A very remarkable book has been written by Lord Astor and Mr. Rowntree, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, in which they state that no survey of agricultural land has been made in this country since 1873. They point out the truth that we do not know to-day who owns the land, how many landlords there are, how big are their estates, how scattered they are, how many owner-occupiers there are, how far the owner-occupiers are being crippled by heavy mortgages on their land, and how much land is reasonably well cultivated. We all admit that a very large proportion of agricultural land in this country is reasonably well cultivated, and it is under private ownership, but we do not know how much is scandalously under-cultivated. We do know that considerable portions of land are scandalously under-cultivated. We do not know how far the arrangements between landlord and tenant have broken down, or how far each one has failed to perform his respective functions. I would appeal to the

House and the Minister to consider this question in order to see how far the evils in private ownership—and we all know that there are evils—may be put right. I should like to know from the Government whether they are now prepared to go ahead in order to bring about a long-term policy in agriculture, of which we have heard so much. Let us examine the facts. I would ask for some official statement on that point.

5.58 p.m.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: The right hon. Member moved the Motion in a speech which I found most attractive, although I did not agree with all his conclusions. I should like to thank him very sincerely for the kind references which he made to the work of the Forestry Commission, and to my own part in it. He said kinder things about me than I personally deserve. I am very glad that my hon. Friend and colleague on the Forestry Commission, the Member for the Gower division (Mr. D. Grenfell) is here, and I only wish he had been present to hear his colleague's appreciative remarks. I want to look at this subject simply from the point of view of the future development of the Forestry Commission and of similar concerns run on the same kind of lines for the State. What I ask myself is, whether it is a sound thing for the Crown or public authorities to acquire large areas of land for public purposes—I am sure it is—whether they could do better by acquiring the land by voluntary negotiation, or whether it would do better in the interests of the State and the community if they made use of general compulsory powers?
Although it is not very clear from the wording of the Motion, I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he contemplates compulsory nationalisation spread over a period of time. The transfer of land to the Crown and to public authorities is going on quite rapidly now. The general movement of social and industrial development is tending that way, and as far as one can see it is being accentuated rather than otherwise. The tendency of land to be transferred to the Crown and public authorities will continue. Economic forces may perhaps drive it at a faster rate than it is going to-day. I feel that in the interests of the State and the people it is better it should go on by a gradual process of voluntary transfer with good will,


than by compulsory acquisition, which will alienate good will and, in my opinion, make the acquisition of land by the State a much more costly affair than it is to-day. I dread to think of the effect it might have on the Forestry Commission with which I am particularly concerned.
I think the hon. Member for Gower will agree with me that the Forestry Commission have acquired a million acres or so for the Crown much more cheaply than we could have done if we had utilised the compulsory powers which we possess. We should undoubtedly have had to pay more. In every case the land has been acquired or purchased with the good will of the people from whom we have acquired it, and the result has been that in our work we have been able to rely on their co-operation. All these advantages would have been lost, alienated, under a compulsory acquisition system. With regard to the use of the land by the people and for the people, the Forestry Commission have been able to establish and equip quite a considerable number of forest workers' holdings, and so far as my experience goes they are the most successful form of smallholdings attempted during recent years.
This development is likely to go on as our woodlands grow and the trees mature. They will require an increasing amount of labour, and consequently there will be an intensification of the settlement of forest workers' holdings. In the early days you do not want so much labour, but a fully matured wood wants more than one whole-time man for every hundred acres. In the Forest of Dean we employ one whole-time man for every 39 acres. I should not be in order to dwell upon this point, but I do want to stress the fact that the voluntary passage of land into the hands of the Crown under the administration of the Forestry Commission is working very well, and I believe it would be hamered, not helped, by the application of compulsory powers.
The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) suggested that when I spoke last July on the Forestry Commission Estimates I expressed a desire that we should have in our hands all the private woodlands of the country. God forbid that we should have all the private woodlands. If we had to administer the mass of small woodlands

which are at present in private ownership I am convinced that even the admirable staff which we have built up would be quite unable to cope with the work. I wonder whether hon. Members realise how small, on the average, privately-owned woodlands are. We in the Forestry Commission put 1,000 acres as the minimum forest which it is economic to administer. Most of our forests are very much larger. I was referred to by the right hon. Member as being a considerable landowner. I own, as a matter of fact, approximately 600 acres of woodland in Kent and Sussex. The average area of these woodlands is less than six acres, and I have about 100 of them. Think what an appalling problem it would be for a public Department to have to acquire compulsorily all these little plots of woodlands and try to make a decent job of it. It could not be done. I am only one of many hundreds of woodland owners whose small woodlands would be taken over under compulsory nationalisation and handed over to the Forestry Commission for management and control. In my opinion it would render unsuccessful all the efforts of the Forestry Commission up to the present time, of which I think we can reasonably be proud.

Mr. J. Morgan: Would not the transfer of such small pieces of woodlands and farms make it possible for farmers to use them for fencing purposes? There is no reason to 'move the copse from the farm.

Sir G. Courthope: The copse could not be moved. My argument is that it is better in the interests of the State, and when you are considering the work of the Forestry Commission, to leave it on a voluntary basis rather than advocate a universal compulsory system of acquisition, which I believe would rob our enterprise of the success which up to the present it has had. I am quite confident in my own mind that the modern tendency of social development will enable the Forestry Commission to acquire all the land they need as fast as they can reasonably handle it, and I think for other purposes that the Crown and local authorities will also find it possible to acquire on reasonable terms and at a sufficient rate all the land they want for the public services. I hope, therefore, that the House will not be misled, as I regard it, into


advocating any compulsory purchase in place of the voluntary system which exists to-day.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity of speaking in this Debate because I realise that the land question is a basic problem and that it has to be put right before we can build a reasonable and stable state of society. Two points were mentioned by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, to which I want to refer. The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) seemed to me to suffer from great confusion of thought. He did not seem to me to be able to differentiate between the ownership of land and the ownership of produced wealth. I do not wish to lecture the hon. Member, but one must be quite clear in one's mind what that difference is. To put it simply, land is a limited commodity; the land surface of the globe has been the same since Genesis and presumably will be the same until the world's end. Land, with its natural resources, is the source of all the produced wealth which man wants, and it is fundamentally unsound to confuse the two issues as the hon. Member did. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) referred to the question of subsidies and challenged the statement of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) as to the subsidies which have been paid to agriculture. I have taken the trouble to collect the actual figures. My right hon. Friend was in fact not clamant enough in his figures. We claim that all these subsidies eventually go to the landowner, and the benefits accruing to landowners, including the bacon quota, amount to a sum of not less than £52,000,000 a year.

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Member explain why he calls the bacon quota a subsidy?

Mr. Stokes: First of all the derating of agricultural land amounts to £15,000,000, the wheat subsidy to £7,000,000, the sugar-beet subsidy to £6,000,000, milk subsidy to £3,000,000, beet to £6,000,000 and the bacon quota is estimated to provide a further benefit of £15,000,000. The hon. Member may dispute these figures.

Mr. Turton: I want to know why the bacon quota is a subsidy.

Captain Heilgers: May I ask the hon. Member why he quotes the sugar-beet subsidy at £6,000,000 when it was less than £2,000,000 last year?

Mr. Stokes: If I accept the figure given by the hon. and gallant Member it is still a ghastly amount. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton claims that I should not regard a quota as a subsidy. I would ask him where does the money go eventually if it does not go into the pockets of the landowners? It seems to me that the private ownership of land involves what I call a double robbery; it allows the owner of land to appropriate the value created by the community, and in addition it obliges the Government to confiscate individual earnings in order to pay for the public services. As many hon. Members may know, I am engaged very largely in industry; and recently, when I made a tour of South-Eastern Europe, what struck me particularly was that the burden which industry has to bear in this country is out of all proportion to that which it has to bear on the Continent. Something has to be done if our export trade is not to be whittled away altogether. I throw out to hon. Members opposite the suggestion that if industry could be relieved of this iniquitous burden that it is now required to provide, and the benefit of which finds its way into the pockets of private landlords, it would be of great assistance to the export trade.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: Is it not a fact that a very large amount of the subsidies goes into wages? I know that the wages of agricultural labourers are not anything like what they ought to be, but is it not a fact that during the last four years the wages in agriculture have risen by 3s. 4d. per head?

Mr. Stokes: Surely, the hon. Member has gone back to my previous point. It is extremely difficult for a novice in this House to make a coherent speech with constant interruptions. I agree that some of the subsidies go into wages, but what I have been trying to point out is that a sum calculated to be not less than £500,000,000 is paid into the pockets of the private owners, companies, corporations, Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and so on every year for the right of the people to make use of land which really belongs to the people. When that figure is compared with the total rates throughout the country, one realises the disproportion,


since the total rates amount to only £170,000,000. When one compares it directly with the amount of the export trade, the whole thing becomes fantastic. Our total exports in 1937 amounted to £560,000,000—and the payments to the landlords amounted to £500,000,000. If that burden could be got rid of and the rent could be appropriated for the use of the community, instead of being allowed to run away as it does now, it would be possible to bring down costs of production and prices, and thus give assistance to the export industry as a whole.
I listened with interest, but with a certain amount of scepticism, to the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the private ownership of land, and as I did so I threw back my mind to the Debate which took place not long ago on the question of coal royalties, when a Measure for public ownership with compensation was brought forward by the Government. I know that I shall not be allowed to-night to discourse on the inequities of that Measure; but it strikes me as being more than likely that land nationalisation will, in the not-very-distant future, become a Tory Measure, for the reason given by my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate. He pointed out that urban land would have to be dealt with in a very different way from agricultural land; I do not agree with that, but I accept his argument for the purpose of illustrating my point. He suggested that before urban land or land ripe for development can be purchased, a tax will have to be levied on it; and I suggest that immediately there will be a scramble by the landlords to get the highest possible price, and probably a land nationalisation Measure will be introduced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
There is another point I wish to make, a point on which I had an opportunity of speaking previously in one of the Debates on Defence, and I refer now particularly to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) this evening. In that Debate, I pointed out that the sums paid for aerodromes amounted to a very considerable figure, no less a sum than £2,500,000 being paid for 56,000 acres of land which had been completely derated and was considered valueless by the owners. My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem pointed out that when the Government ask people to join the Colours and give national service, they

are in effect asking them to do one thing only, to defend land which does not belong to them. What the Government are really doing, in this aerodrome ramp and in other similar rackets that go on with the extension of armaments and so on, is to ask people to pay for their land before they are allowed to die for it. I cannot understand any sensible man putting up with that state of things. I wish that an analogy of that sort could be broadcast on the hoardings so that people could realise the terrible effects of this land monopoly and land racket.
We are asked everywhere to find some way of bringing peace to the world and providing plenty for all. I submit that it will be impossible to bring about the state of things which all of us desire for our brethren all over the world, whatever may be their race, creed or colour, as long as we allow the ever-increasing value of land to be privately appropriated. I should 'heartily support any Measures which would lead to the nationalisation of land, with this one qualification, that I wish to appropriate land values without paying any compensation at all.

6.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) seems to go farther than the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion, since he wants not only to nationalise land, but to do so without paying any compensation. Evidently, the hon. Member fails to realise that the value of land is caused mainly by the improvements, the buildings, fencings, drains, and so on, which have been supplied by the owners or their predecessors. I cannot see why land should be confiscated any more than factories, such as that of the hon. Member, should be confiscated.

Mr. Stokes: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that improvements should be confiscated. I suggested that the people should take back what belongs to them, that is, the commonly-created value of land. I am prepared to pay such compensation as is necessary for improvements, if any, which have been made by the present owners of land.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I submit that the value of land without improvements, buildings, drains, fencings and so on, would be very low indeed. The hon. Member for Ipswich began his speech by


expressing the old and familiar idea that the subsidies given to agriculture go into the pockets of the landlord. That is not so. The subsidies do not go to the landlords, but to the farmers and workmen. There is, of course, just a substratum of truth in the hon. Member's accusation, in the sense that over a very long period of years it is possible that, if agriculture is prosperous and there are many people seeking farms, the rents may go up when the tenants are changed, so that some small benefit from the increased prosperity of the industry may go into the pockets of the landlords. Speaking as a landowner, I cannot see any reason why a landowner should not share in the prosperity of agriculture if that industry is prosperous. It may be said that the subsidies to agriculture come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Hon. Members must remember, however, that subsidies are given not only to agriculture but to other industries. Nobody makes such a tremendous fuss if the shareholders in the motor car industry or the hon. Member for Ipswich make very large profits out of their businesses, whatever they may be, as a result of tariffs; but the hon. Member for Ipswich thinks that it is a wicked thing that landowners should receive a single penny as a result of the increased prosperity of agriculture resulting from action by the Government.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as a landowner, defend a position in which landowners have received £2,500,000 for 56,000 acres of land needed for aerodromes in a national emergency?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: All the land taken by the Government for aerodromes or for other purposes is valued by an independent valuer, and the landlords have to accept the price which is fixed by the valuer. It is fair on both sides.

Mr. Williams: Why was not this land rated?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Owen Evans) suggested that it would be a good thing if the Government arranged for a general survey of the agricultural situation to be made by a completely independent body. I agree with the hon. Member. I think it would be an excellent thing if such a survey could be made. No doubt the

Ministry of Agriculture have a great deal of information of that sort at the present time, but that information is not classified and available to the public. A survey of this sort would be of great value and would help the Government in fixing on a definite policy for the good of agriculture in future. I think it is generally admitted that the position of agriculture at the present time is not satisfactory, despite what the Government have done to help the industry. Some people maintain that the unsatisfactory condition is due to the inefficiency of the farmers, and some say that it is due to our system of land tenure. I believe that our farmers are the most efficient in the world, and that they are not inefficient is shown very clearly by the fact that between 1924 and 1936 the amount produced by each person employed in agriculture increased by 40 per cent. as compared with an increase of 31 per cent. in coal-mining, and an increase of only 25 per cent. in factories.
The fact is that the whole trouble of agriculture is that wholesale prices are far too low in comparison with the costs of production. Few people realise that if the cost of agricultural produce had gone up since 1914 to the same extent as the other items in the cost of living, the food bill of the nation last year would have been £400,000,000 more than it was. That, I think, shows that the trouble lies in prices, and no one can blame the system of land tenure in this country for the present world price of agricultural produce. I believe that the present system, under which a very large number of the agricultural holdings in this country are held on the owner-tenant system, is the best system which could be devised for this country. The owner supplies the capital necessary for the provision of buildings, fences, drains and so forth, and the tenant's capital is left free for use on farming implements and stock. The aation, I am certain, would not be able to supply at the cheap rate at which it is supplied by the landowner to-day without putting extra expense on the taxpayer.
Most landowners take a very serious view of their responsibilities. They all wish to do more for the people on the land than can be done for them at the present time, but the constant drain of capital from the land owing to taxation, and especially Death Duties, makes it very difficult for most landowners to


carry out their responsibilities as they wish to do. Nobody regrets more than the landowner that he is not able to do more, but unless he is fortunate enough to be in a position to put into the land, money derived from other sources, he finds that he cannot do all that he would desire to do. There is not the least doubt about the fact that many owners put more money into the land than they can ever hope to get out of it.
In addition to getting cheap capital under our present system, the farmer gets security of tenure. In some cases there is almost too much security of tenure, because it is exceedingly difficult to get rid of a man who is a bad farmer. The farmer has practically complete security; he is able to farm with the minimum of interference and he can get repairs and alterations done in fairly quick time under our present system. If the land were nationalised he would lose those benefits. If he wanted to have replaced a few slates which had been blown down by a gale, or to have repairs done to farm buildings, he would have to fill up half-a-dozen forms and go to Whitehall or to the county offices, and it would probably take him weeks to have even the smallest repair carried out, under a system of nationalisation. We have also to consider the practical help which the farmer gets at the present time in the form of reductions of rent, which are almost invariably conceded by landowners in order to help a man to tide over hard times. Such concessions could not be given under a system of nationalisation. You could not expect a State official, dealing with public money, to give reductions in rent such as are at present by the landowner who is dealing with his own money.
About 40 per cent. of the land of this country is farmed by owner-occupiers and something like two-thirds of the owners of agricultural land, or rather more, own less than 500 acres each. Some of these owner-occupiers who have been forced to buy their farms would prefer to be under a good landlord. A good many others who have become owners of the land are as proud of their holdings as any Englishman is of his home. But they would gain nothing by nationalisation. All it would result in to them, would be interference and the necessity of having to pay a rent to the Government, because it is not to be presumed that the Govern-

ment would give them the land for nothing. The good owner of agricultural land regards his ownership as a sacred trust, and, in spite of all the handicaps that he has to put up with, he does his best for the land. I believe that the landowners serve a very useful purpose in this country and I am certain that if, by nationalisation or any other means, the landowner disappeared from the countryside, the agricultural community and the agricultural industry would be very much worse off than they are at the present time.

6.37 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The House will allow me to say at the outset how fortunate we are in having had this subject raised in such a moderate and thoughtful a speech as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). If he will allow me to say so, it rather reminded me of those very interesting speeches on the subject of the land which we always expect to hear from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). Before dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's main contention, I wish to take up one or two specific points. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the Kelvin drainage scheme and said that it had taken a very long time. That scheme was held up in 1930 owing to the report of the May Committee, for which I, certainly, am not responsible, but it is now going forward and I hope that when the work on that scheme has been completed the results will be satisfactory.
May I say in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and one or two other speeches from the back benches opposite, that I cannot imagine what those hon. Members would do on the platform if the landlords really did disappear from this country. The landowners seem to constitute a most valuable part of the repertoire of those hon. Members. At all events I wish to take up definitely a point which was made by the hon. Member for Burslem and also, as far as his speech was intelligible on any point by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). That was the suggestion that the people of this country could not be expected to go out and fight for the country if they did not own the land. Apparently, according to that idea, a man who was working in a


factory before he agreed to go out to fight for his country would demand to be told whether the land on which the factory was built was in private ownership or was owned by the county council or the State, and, according to the answer which he received, would either dash off to fight for his country or refrain.
But the implication of the argument, which is a serious one, is wider than that. It is the suggestion that people cannot be expected to defend their country unless the State owns the land. We hear a great deal about disarmament. That argument, it seems to me, would disarm the whole of Europe with the exception of Russia. In no country does the nation own the land, except in Russia. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they had better study what is happening in France which, I believe, is often quoted by them as a typical and worthy example of parliamentary government. There are no better defenders of the soil of their own country than the French peasants, and one of the reasons why they defend it with such tenacity and with typical French courage is because they own the land, which is not nationalised, but owned individually.

Mr. E. J. Williams: But they own it.

Major Tryon: They would not own it under the hon. Member's scheme of nationalisation.

Mr. Williams: Who would own it under that scheme?

Major Tryon: The hon. Member cannot get away with the statement that unless the land belonged to the State, the French peasants could not be expected to fight for their country. I never heard such rubbish in my life. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Post Office?"] I propose to deal with the Post Office, and probably what I have to say will not suit hon. Members opposite either. I now come to the Motion, which, I am suggesting should be amended. I wish respectfully to congratulate my two hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Amendment. I do so with the utmost sincerity, not only because they both delivered closely reasoned speeches based upon intimate knowledge of the subject, but also because I feel that they have in some ways an advantage over me in that they have both addressed the House

several times this year, whereas I have to ask for some indulgence in addressing the House now in a general Debate, for the first time this year. I suggest that the Motion is contradictory. It begins by stating that private enterprise is a serious barrier, but in the latter and operative part it does not suggest that the barrier should be removed except in a small way and gradually.
The Mover of the Motion gave some figures which relieve me of the necessity of going over the same ground. There are, as he said, millions of acres at this moment not in private hands, but held as Crown land, or by the Forestry Commission, or by the Air Ministry, or in certain other ways. The amount of such land, according to figures given the other day by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is about 2,500,000 acres, of which over 1,000,000 acres are in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman opposite enlarged those figures quite properly, by including certain other land, but that shows that it is possible at the present time, for very large areas of land to be taken from private enterprise and used by the State when the State really needs it. It seemed to me unfortunate, that while we had many enthusiastic speeches from the Labour party saying what a splendid thing nationalisation of the land would be, they did not give us any examples of the successful operation of that process in other lands.
Of course, they all know the one country where land has been nationalised, and it is rather remarkable that they did not go into that case. I do not intend to say anything against the form of government of any other country, but it is remarkable that the one country where the political influence of the people is not felt to anything like the same extent as the political influence of the people in this country, is the country where nationalisation and Socialism have been kept going. I believe that it is due to the influence of public opinion here upon Members of Parliament that the Labour party have put down such a very weak and timid Motion on this subject. I will not myself say a word about Russia, but we are fortunate enough to have the statement of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who, writing in "Forward" in November, 1932, said of Russia:


Food is scarce, especially meat.
It seems, therefore, that under Socialist management of the land you do avoid that excessive production which is complained of so very often by hon. Members and of which we are given lamentable examples such as that of surplus coffee being burned. In the case of Russia, apparently, you do not get excessive production, but inadequate production, and that is on the authority of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, whom I shall have much pleasure in quoting again. My view of this Motion is that it shows a great weakening of the Labour party's advocacy of nationalisation. To put it in a familiar form, it is rather a retreat from Moscow. I wonder that hon. Members oppositt did not give us the example, so often quoted, of the splendid success of farming in Denmark. Danish farming is universally admitted to be a great success, but in Denmark over 90 per cent. of the farms are farmed by owner-occupiers and are not owned by the State. I do not gather that there is any shortage of meat in Denmark.

Mr. MacLaren: There are no subsidies either.

Major Tryon: I am now coming to a wider point. I have the pleasure of knowing a great many of the members of the Agricultural Committee of our party, and I view with the greatest admiration the wide range of knowledge of agricultural subjects among these Members and among all the agricultural Members supporting the Government. They include people who have owned and farmed and managed land and have been responsible from day to day for the upkeep of buildings and so forth. They are in close touch with agriculture, and that is probably why they take a somewhat different view from hon. Members opposite, on the question of the advantages of nationalisation.
The conditions of farming in this country are quite extraordinarily varied. They vary not only from county to county but almost from mile to mile. I cannot conceive, therefore, of anything which could be less appropriate for being managed by bureaucracy, less likely to be successful, despite my profound admiration for the Civil Service, than farming from Whitehall. But this taking over the land is only part of the policy. Not only

do they want to take over the land because of the power which it would give them, but they would like to farm it with the authoritarian power which, nationalisation would give them. It is the power over the farms and over the way in which they are managed that they want, but I cannot conceive that the Labour party with its Ministers doing this work and our great Civil Service employed for the first time on a huge scale on this work, would farm the land of this country half as well as the farmers who are now doing it.
I have in my hands a most charming book issued by the Labour party on their agricultural policy. When they wanted to get an agricultural policy, they did not go to farmers or farm labourers, but they derived their information from a number of sources, and largely, as we always describe it here, from another place. Here we have a prescription for agriculture produced by Lord Addison, who was a very skilled medical officer and for many years has taken an interest in agriculture. He proposes State management, controlled by officials and Ministers, of the most intricate conditions, varying, as I say, from county to county. I have been so fortunate as to read this book, and not only to read it through to the end, but to reach the picture on the back page, and there we see what is going to happen under the Labour policy for agriculture. There we see a picture of a rather forlorn looking family consisting of a father, mother, and child, but there is not in that picture a single thing of any kind being produced. But the sun is shining. The Labour party do not seem to be very active in contesting agricultural constituencies lately, but at all events in this picture the sun is shining. What is the result of their policy? It appears to be a colossal Government building entirely filled, apparently with officials, on whom the sun is shining. In the foreground there is a large double road, which would delight the heart of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and which apparently suggests that industry also has been nationalised, because along that road there is nothing of any kind proceeding.
I was challenged about the Post Office. I hope hon. Members opposite will loudly cheer this statement on that subject by their leader, which I will read:


The difficulty is that the Post Office is not an example of Socialism but of State capitalism.
He points out that the difficulty with the Post Office is that they have to make considerable payments to the Treasury, and that, in colloquial language, rather cramps their style. We are coming to this. There are two ways in which nationalisation could be introduced. You could introduce it bit by bit on the lines of the very timid Motion of the Labour party. In that case, if it does not pay—and I do not believe it will—you will have to levy taxation out of what is left of private enterprise to keep going. But supposing you nationalise everything, what will happen then? You will have to make it pay, and you will have to work the farms, but it is obvious that many of the sources of the income which you now get from the land will not then be available. There will not be, for instance, those death duties, which do undoubtedly bear heavily on the agricultural industry. When we hear of the land being in private hands, I hope it will not be forgotten that enormous burdens do fall on agriculture.
If you do away with the capitalists altogether, and everything is to be nationalised, you will have to make a profit from your State enterprises, otherwise you will have no revenue for your social services, and judging from the programmes and Motions put down in this House from time to time, the expenditure of the Labour party, if it came into power, is likely to be extremely high. You will want an enormous income somehow to keep all the social services going, and to judge from your views on another matter, on which I must not touch too closely, you will want a very large revenue to maintain those enormous armed forces for your foreign policy of intervening in various parts of the world. Therefore, I suggest that it is essential that all your nationalised industries should pay, and I say that under your scheme, agriculture will not pay, because it is too complicated and too intricate a matter to be managed and run by the State.
I would like now to take up a matter which is somewhat controversial. I suggest that some of the Labour party are in favour of confiscation. Is that denied?

Mr. Johnston: Yes.

Major Tryon: I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of it. He is much too sensible a man.

Mr. Johnston: I mean the Labour party officially.

Major Tryon: Then I am sorry that the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) is publicly removed from any connection with the Labour party, because he is quoted as saying at a Labour party conference—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Are you ashamed of your own conferences? He was talking of confiscation, and I want to be quite fair and to say that he was opposing it, but he said:
The whole blessed thing is a matter of expediency…You have to ask yourselves whether it is worth while urging a policy you want at the cost of preventing yourselves from being politically competent to put it into force.
That is a very clear statement and shows that at all events large numbers of the Labour party are in favour of confiscation. Therefore, I see no reason why we should not quote these statements.
We think this Motion is capable of very great improvement. We do not like this Motion of hon. Members opposite. We suggest that it should be made much more definite, and we contend that there are at present adequate methods available for getting land for the service of the State. We are prepared to test in this House, by vote, whether they are in favour of individual enterprise being allowed to cultivate the land, or whether it is to be stamped out and nationalisation is to become the policy of the party opposite. On those two points we are prepared to challenge hon. Members opposite. I have not the least doubt that individual enterprise is much more characteristic of the character of our people than all this endless control by rules and regulations. I do not wish to use a phrase which would in any way upset hon. Members opposite, but I sometimes think that when we hear of the opinion of organised labour the better phrase would be the organised opinion of Labour.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: At first I thought I should have to compliment the other side on having put up as their chief speaker the principal exponent in practical form of the success of nationalisation in the


State in the Postmaster-General, but after congratulating the opening speakers on behalf of the Motion for their moderate approach to the subject, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proceeded to make a thoroughly provocative speech right off the line of true discussion. We have not been discussing to-night the nationalisation of farming. We have been discussing a procedure for acquiring on behalf of the State larger tracts of land in this country. It is true that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman instanced Denmark as a country in which the private ownership of land, on the basis of the working farmer, appears, on the face of it, to justify the principle of the private ownership of land, but what is the true story of Denmark?
I have had the privilege and pleasure of going there several times, and I have taken a little trouble over Denmark, because it is a case that can be cited to confuse this issue. The fact is that Denmark was faced with the spectacle of the industrial revolution developing in its neighbours, Germany and Great Britain, in their use of coal, iron and every manufacturing process open to them; and the whole resources of the Danish State, from finance to education and every kind of commercial institution, were put behind the development of agriculture in Denmark, for the simple and solid reason that they had no other economic asset than the land available. It was the backing of the State from start to finish that put Danish farming on its feet, plus one other simple fact, that all its surplus products available for the overseas market—and it is only maintained on that basis—were put into the bottle-neck of a single port which enabled the grading and standardisation of its products to be carried out satisfactorily. But the interesting thing about Denmark is that in the last two general elections the Danish farmer has been in revolt against the burden of his mortgages. This has become a first-class agrarian issue in Denmark, and the State has had to take the first line of renovation of the industry by itself acquiring land and now putting settlers on the land as State tenants. That is a tendency which is developing even in Denmark.
There have been several other interesting comments to which I would refer before passing to my main line of approach to this subject. The hon. Mem-

ber for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) rather tended to the idea that we should stimulate the owner-occupier in farming, and that was effectively met from this side, I thought, when the difficulty of establishing those people on the land was pointed out. He said one other interesting thing—that if agriculture could be made more prosperous then we should settle those people on the land. He also asked, Where was our policy of guaranteed prices? This issue is coming to the point where it ceases any longer to be academic, and has become an issue which will go right into the forefront of agricultural politics very soon. It is bound to happen. My right hon. Friend who moved the Motion said that the rent roll is round about £37,000,000 a year—a figure that was not denied. Then the figure was given, and again it was accepted after correction, that the total volume of the subsidies which can now be seen to enter farming is round about £34,000,000 a year. The relationship of the £34,000,000 to the £37,000,000 is rather suggestive. The £37,000,000 is the rent roll of the farming industry, and the £34,000,000 is the total of the subsidies.

Captain Heilgers: I did interrupt the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on that point. He said that the subsidies were £52,000,000. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) has stated that the subsidies are £34,000,000. Let me quote "Your Britain," which I think the hon. Member will take as a good authority:
At present the Government pays £14,500,000 of Britain's money in subsidies which are supposed to benefit the growers of food.

Mr. Morgan: I will, of course, accept even the figures that the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) has put forward, but he has excluded derating, which brings it up to £30,000,000. I will accept the figure of £30,000,000 a year if he will accept the statement that the rent roll is, roughly, £37,000,000. He says that the landlord has not benefited from the subsidies, but that wages have benefited. What has the farmer done about wages? Called upon to pay the wages laid down by the wages boards the farmer has adjusted himself to the position by discharging his men. They are leaving the industry at the rate


of 1,000 a month. He has reacted to the wages boards by operating his farms with fewer men. But what has happened to his subsidies? The rent roll has remained practically static at a time when the depression of the industry ought to have brought about a reduction of the rent roll. When the farmer applied to his landlord—prior to the steps that were taken to assist him—he was told that assistance would be found by the Government. As he felt the pressure of depression and approached his landlord again, he was asked "How much wheat subsidy have you drawn? How much beef subsidy have you drawn? How much sugar beet subsidy?" His case for a reduction of rent has been affected—I do not want to exaggerate—by the knowledge which the landowners had that the Government have been paying a certain volume of subsidies to their tenants. As landlords they have become interested in that transaction.

Mr. Turton: There has been an economic survey of rents in Scottish agriculture, as I am sure the hon. Member will know, and that shows that rents have dropped from the figure of 110 in 1930 to 87 in 1937.

Mr. Morgan: I am developing the argument of my right hon. Friend, and the figure he gave was not contested at the time by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. I will continue the argument. He asked why we do not produce our guaranteed price system, which we stand for, and which is being increasingly accepted among the farming community as being the way through. He asks why we do not produce it first. What happened after the War? The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton reminded us that before the War there were very few owner-occupiers of farms, but immediately after the War the number increased to about 40 per cent., and to-day 3½ to 4 out of every 10 farms are nominally owned by the farmers. Numbers of estates were thrown on the market after the War. On an estate of 15 farms—and I know several—there would be three thoroughly indifferent farms. The tenants would be men who were quite reckless about the state of their land and would be seen more often than they ought to be in the local market town. There would be four or five tenants who were farming moderately well and employing a certain

measure of labour; and there would probably be three tenants who were farming extraordinarily well, tenants of whom the landlord was proud.
The War sent agricultural prices up, and it is significant that that was the moment chosen by the landlords to dispose of a large proportion of their estates. Agriculture had become more prosperous and they saw an exceptionally good chance to get rid of their estates. What was the position of those 15 tenants? The landlord would quite nicely and properly, give them the first option to buy and in some cases they would buy their farms. But supposing the farms went to auction, as in some cases they did. The man who had farmed indifferently, in spite of the operation of tenant right, would be able to get his land almost at a song. Nobody would want his thistle-ridden land. The fact that he had been an indifferent farmer gave him an advantage when it came to the purchase of his farm. The man who had been farming moderately well would get his farm at a moderate price. But what about the man who had been farming really well? If his farm came into the open market and he had to buy it he would find there would be competition for his farm, and the value of his work would be discounted to a very large extent by the increased price for that farm finding its way to the landlord. His land would realise at auction £10 or £15 on acre more than the land which had been indifferently farmed, (so proving that a landlord to some extent benefits from the good work of a good tenant. Precisely the same thing would happen if we brought forward our plan for guaranteed prices and succeeded in prevailing upon the country to accept it. The moment we undertook to give the cereal farmer his price and the fat bullock man his price, and put the milk industry on a satisfactory footing, the advantage would be discounted forthwith in an increase in the value of the land. We want to stop that. We fully intend to put farming right but—

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to say that between 1914 and this day, when the subsidies have been given, the rents of land have not gone up, though in that period agricultural wages have gone up from 15s. to 35s., and, therefore, I submit that the agricultural labourer has benefited.

Mr. Morgan: I am pursuing a main line of argument, and while I have no desire to pass the hon. Member's argument by, I ask him, in view of the time, to allow me to develop my own argument. I am convinced that we are discussing a very substantial Motion. Thoughtful people in charge of estates, whether as owners or managers, are realising that the issue of the nationalisation of farming land is of growing importance and is one which will be faced by one side of the House or the other within a reasonably short time. Hon. Members opposite have no objection to the principle. They nationalised tithe, nationalised a property right which pays a revenue. It was a simple financial operation, carried overnight without a single disturbance of the kind which the Postmaster-General indicated to-night. A considerable sum was in-volved in that transaction. Some £80,000,000, or thereabouts, was paid for a right that was not economic, not remunerative and not earning, but a right that was about to be extinguished in the ordinary process of time as a feudalistic institution; yet hon. Members opposite succeeded in getting cash value for it before it was extinguished by public opinion. The operation was perfectly simple. It involved no confiscation. It carried in it the principle of compensation for a right that was very arguable. It was carried, with support, in principle, from this side, on the basis of compensation. I suggest that the principle of nationalisation is not objected to any longer on the other side of the House. Members there are interested only in the terms on which the transaction shall be carried through. We have given every assurance on the point. This Debate is approached from this side on the declared presumption that we accept the principle of compensation, and the principal speaker from the other side had no right to draw the red herring of confiscation across the issue.

Mr. Turton: Of four Socialist speakers who have addressed the House two have been in favour of expropriation without compensation and two with compensation.

Mr. Morgan: May I respectfully point out that the two hon. Members who did ask for confiscation qualified their support of our party on this Motion, and I hope he will accept that as sufficient?

The discussion to-night has been conducted on the basis I have stated, and he ought to accept it on that basis. Hon. Members opposite will admit that the state of the land at the moment is deplorable. They have supported their party's programme for developing the fertility of the land by means of special subsidies. The policy has been mainly of assistance to the landlords, but they started it on the ground that the land had been falling out of condition.
There is the problem of the milk supply. There are 120,000 farmers trying to produce milk, and only 22,000 of them are capable, with their equipment, of coming up even to the graduated standard of milk production. In the first place they have not the cowsheds. If we were to schedule cowsheds as we schedule slums half the cowsheds would be shut down from the production of liquid milk. That is known to hon. Members opposite who are landlords. The problem of the Milk Board is that they have found that at least half the farmers have not facilities for cooling their milk on their farms. That is a problem in the national milk supply of the adequate equipment of the dairy farms. Hon. Members on the other side know that the Fens at this moment may at any time be flooded as they have been in recent times. What is the problem of the Fens? The time has come when £10,000,000 of public money is needed to put the Fens right, and yet hon. Members on the other side dare not propose that public money to that volume should be expended on private property in the Fens with all the complicated and difficult machinery that is there to collect it back again for the public revenue. Some of the Fens are now in a derelict condition, and the finest land of the country is subject to the flooding menace.

Sir E. Shepperson: The Fens are the most fertile part of the country.

Mr. Morgan: I agree, but they are being made unfertile by the flood menace every year soaking the land. Land that lies under water in the winter loses half its value in production, because it is cold arid clammy when the time comes for it to be got into a condition for cropping.
What have we really to consider in this Motion? I am not opposed to the landlord system as such. I am primarily interested in handling the agricultural


problem properly as soon as possible, because it cannot go on as it is. We must face the fact that, somehow or other, the farmer has not benefited by the subsidies which the Government have given him. We have evidence for it as recently as the meeting at Lincoln. The farmer is not doing that because he likes to be a revolutionary and play into the hands of this party, but he has been driven to it by the attitude adopted to this problem by the other side. He will listen to us because we are propounding an effective policy that will get him out of the mess. The private landlord is no longer capable of playing the part in the development of the farming industry that the great landlords of the past did—and I willingly give them testimony for that. We have only to mention the names of men like Cope and Townshend to realise the part played by landlords in the development of farming. We have only to think of the Bed-fords with their great afforestation schemes to see how the landlords of the past gave an indication to the way in these matters. The landlords are not doing that to-day. They are taking as much rent as they can reasonably get in the circumstances. I am speaking generally. They are waiting on the assistance that the Government may give to the industry to see whether they can meet the demands of their tenants for a reduction. It depends on the financial assistance which the Government can give whether they will get an even 2½ per cent. on their money invested in farm lands, and not on the farmer's capacity to pay.
We know the state of the land to-day and we all deplore it. We know the villages that were founded in the great days, and we know the argument that the village which has evidence of a single interest in it and an interest in the life of the place is all to the good. But that is not the story. The story is the evidence of decline, and some instrument must now be brought in to recover good management of the land and good farming. What alternatives do you put up? Your main argument has been that we should encourage the settlement of small occupying farmers on the land. Hon. Members know that the problem of farming to-day is the problem of working capital. If we bring forward our schemes for wheat, pigs, beef and milk on the basis of guaranteed prices, what will happen? The

farmer will have to find enough capital with which to buy good pigs, good cows, and more implements and fertilisers. Are you prepared to give him that working capital, because that ought to be the first charge on the industry?

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that he should address me.

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. What do hon. Members on the other side want? They want the owner-occupier to be given a vested interest in the land, that he should take a pride in his efforts and be secured a return for the effort he puts in. Security of tenure is what he wants and what hon. Members opposite would like to see him have, but why should he be called upon to gather together every little bit of cash that he can put his hand on and then, as to 50 per cent. of it—because I doubt whether any mortgagee would give him any more—he must mortgage himself to some outside interest, which is now increasingly becoming of the moneylender type, and thus loan the whole of his cash capital merely to get the right to farm? We say, let him farm and let the State acquire the farm and give the farmer the right to be on it; and let him use his own capital for its development.
Why is farming so badly off, and why does farming not hold the interest of this country to the extent to which it is entitled? It is still the basic industry and still has the greatest volume of output, in spite of its difficulty. The reason is that this country is dominated by the simple fact that nine people out of 10 live in the towns and have a towny mind and outlook. They live in the industrial areas, and commercial, banking, financial and national institutions invariably invest their money and pursue their activities in a precisely opposite direction. They will have £1,000,000,000 invested in the farming of the Argentine, Australia or South Africa, and when the Argentine comes to this House or the Government and asks for a market to be found for its produce, who in this House will defend farming in the Argentine? Members for the City of London, because they have a vested interest in the state of farming in the Argentine. We have to find an instrument that will give the finance of the State a vested interest in farming in this country. If there were £500,000,000 of land bonds available to the financial interests of the


City of London, which we would acquire as a security for taking over the agricultural land, it would not be only the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) who would be on his feet for farming, or the hon. Member for Thirsk and Molton; it would be the hon. Members for the City of London, who would draw our attention to the fact that every penny we spend on the land to improve its production would increase the value of the securities they held in their safes and deposits. They would have a vested interest in promoting good farming. We have somehow to find an alternative in place of the private landlord, who once gave that support to the industry in the form of permanent long-term capital. The practical alternative is the State and the best possible terms that agriculturists can arrange with the State. Our proposal to acquire agricultural land under a bond system, as in the case of tithe and mining royalties, would present no difficulties, and would for the first time find this House and the commercial institutions with a vested interest in the fate of farming.
I must touch on the question of urban values. How can agricultural land acquired by the State operate in regard to those interests? We would be ready to give exemptions to any class of interests that would prefer to be outside, broadly speaking, such as smallholders, the border-line interests on the edge of large cities and developing areas. We would have no objection to giving them the alternative of the policy of the taxation

of land and site values, or of giving them the option of being acquired by the State or of coming under the policy advocated in this Motion. They might prefer to be bought outright by the State, but the agricultural land acquired by the State could be used to puncture the urban values that are so obstructive in the way of urban and civilised development. A corporation wishing to have a housing development on the outskirts of a town would be able to approach the land authority owning the agricultural land for land at a reasonable price. That in itself would deflate the values in the towns.

I hope that all Members on all sides will consider this Motion seriously. This policy is in the forefront of the Labour party programme, and has not been hidden in any way as has been suggested on the other side. It represents a substantial contribution to the problem of the farming industry, and it will lead to a permanent and abiding interest in agriculture, so that, whoever the Minister of Agriculture may be, there will be a continuity of interests in the industry, because there will be this heritage of State ownership of the land to preserve and develop it. I hope the Motion will receive support from the other side of the House of those who have hitherto been against the principle embodied in it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 219.

Division No. 19.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Daggar, G.
Hopkin, D.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Dalton, H.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Adamson, W. M.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Day, H.
Kirby, B. V.


Altlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D.


Banfield, J. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Barnes, A. J.
Ede, J. C.
Lathan, G.


Barr, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leach, W.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Leonard, W.


Batey, J.
Frankel, D.
Leslie, J. R.


Bellenger, F. J.
Gallachar, W.
Logan, D. G.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.


Benson, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Bevan, A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McEntee, V. La T.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Griffiths, J. (LIanelly)
Maclean, N.


Buchanan, G.
Groves, T. E.
MacNeill Weir, L.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Charlaton, H. C.
Hall, J. H. (Whiteshapel)
Mander, G. le M.


Chater, D.
Hardie, Agnes
Mashers, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Messer, F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Milner, Major J.


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Montague, F.


Collindridge, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hollins, A.
Muff, G.




Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Silverman, S. S.
Viant, S. P.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Simpson, F. B.
Watkins, F. C.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Watson, W. McL.


Parkinson, J. A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Welsh, J. C.


Pearson, A.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Westwood, J.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Pritt, D. N.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Stephen, C.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Ridley, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Riley, B.
Stokes, R. R.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Ritson. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Sanders, W. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)



Sexton. T. M.
Thorne, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Shinwell, E.
Thurtle, E.
Mr. J. Morgan and Mr. T.


Silkin, L.
Tinker, J. J.
Johnston.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt-Col. G. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Magnay, T


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Foot, D. M.
Maitland, A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Markham, S. F.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Marsden, Commander A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Goldie, N. B.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bernays, R. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Boulton, W. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moreing, A. C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Brass, Sir W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Munro, P.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nall, Sir J.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Bull, B. B.
Hambro, A. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Burton, Col. H. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick, C. M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Peake, O.


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cary, R. A.
Hepburn. P. G. T. Buchan-
Petheriok, M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hepworth, J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Herbert, Major J A. (Monmouth)
Pilkington, R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Higgs, W. F.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Holdsworth, H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Holmes, J. S.
Radford, E. A.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hopkinson, A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ramsbotham, H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cox, Trevor
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Joel, D. J. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cross, R. H.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rowlands, G.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Russell. Sir Alexander


Davidson, Viscountess
Kimball, L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


De Chair, S. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salmon, Sir I.


De la Bere, R.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Salt, E. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Denville, Alfred
Leech, Sir J. W.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Donner, P. W.
Lees-Jones, J.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Drewe, C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Selley, H. R.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Levy, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lewis, O.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Duggan, H. J.
Liddall, W. S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Dunglass, Lord.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Eskersley, P. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Edmondson. Major Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Emery, J. F.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Errington, E.
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Everard, W. L.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Tasker, Sir R I.







Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Wragg, H.


Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wells, Sir Sydney
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Wakefield, W. W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)



Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Willoughby de Eresby. Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Mr. Turton and Mr. Raikes.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 123.

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyle, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Patrick, C. M.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peake, O.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Petherick, M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Hambro, A. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)
Pilkington, R.


Bernays, R. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hely-Hutohinson, M. R.
Procter, Major H. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A P.
Radford, E. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hepworth, J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Brass, Sir W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Higgs, W. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Holdsworth, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hopkinson, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bull, B. B.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Burton, Col, H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rowlands, G.


Cary, R. A.
Hunloke, H. P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hutohinson, G. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salt, E. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk. N.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kimball, L.
Salley, H. R.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cox, Trevor
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Cross, R. H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crossley, A. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spears, Brigadier-General E L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Levy, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lewis, O.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Culverwell, C. T.
Liddell, W. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, K. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


De Chair, S. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


De la Bère, R.
Loftus, P. C.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Denville, Alfred
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Drewe, C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wakefield, W. W.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wallaoe, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Duggan, H. J.
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dunglass, Lord
Magnay, T.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Eskersley, P. T.
Maitland, A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham Buller, Sir M.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Emery, J. F.
Markham, S. F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Everard, W. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fleming, E. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Foot, D. M.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wragg, H.


Fox, Sit G. W. G.
Moreing, A. C.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Young, A. S. L. (Pertick)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gluckstein, L. H.
Munro, P.
Mr. Turton and Mr. Raikes.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Nall, Sir J.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sanders, W. S.


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hollins, A.
Shinwell, E.


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Silkin, L.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Bevan, A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Leach, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Leonard, W.
Stokes, R. R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Collindridge, F.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle. E.


Dalton, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Day, H.
Mander, G. le M.
Westwood, J.


Dobbie, W.
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Ede, J. C.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Garro Jones, G. M.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. T. Johnston and Mr. J.




Morgan.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 116.

Division 21.]
AYES.
[7.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon, Sir G. L.
Hepworth, J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Herbert, Major J. A (Monmouth)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cross, R. H.
Higgs, W. F.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Holdsworth, H.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Holmes, J. S.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
De Chair, S. S.
Hopkinson, A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Denville, Alfred
Howitt, Dr. A. B


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bernays, R. H.
Duggan, H. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Boulton, W. W.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Joel, D. J. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Brass, Sir W.
Emery, J. F.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fleming, E. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Leech, Sir J. W.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Lees-Jones, J.


Bull, B. B.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Levy, T.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Liddall, W. S.


Butcher, H. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lindsay, K. M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Lloyd, G. W.


Cary, R. A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Loftus, P. C.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Grimston, R. V.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
McCorquodale, M. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
McKie, J. H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Magnay, T.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Maitland, A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest




Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Radford, E. A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Markham, S. F.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Marsden, Commander A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Ward, Lieut,-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Rowlands, G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Munro, P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Nall, Sir J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wells, Sir Sydney


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Salt, E. W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Samuel, M. R. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Wood, Hon. C.I.C.


Peake, O.
Selley, H. R.
Wragg, H.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Petherick, M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)



Pilkington, R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Mr. Raikes and Mr. Turton.


Procter, Major H. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Groves, T. E.
Riley, B.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Seely, Sir H. M.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Sexton, T. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Silkin, L.


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Silverman, S. S.


Bellenger F. J.
Hollins, A.
Simpson, F. B.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bevan, A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.
Stokes, R. R.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Collindridge, F.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, A.
Welsh, J. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Day, H.
Mender, G. le M.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Dobbie, W.
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Milner, Major J.
Williams. T. (Don Valley)


Ede, J. C.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Frankel, D.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gallacher, W.
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Gardner, B. W.
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. J. Morgan and Mr. T.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pearson, A.
Johnston.

Resolved,
That, while recognising the value of the powers already existing for the State and local authorities to acquire land for essential purposes, this House is of the opinion that the abolition of the private ownership of land would retard its proper development and thus be detrimental to the interests of the nation.

SAFETY IN MINES.

7.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I beg to move,

That, in view of the increasing number of accidents to boys employed in mines, this House would welcome legislation to prohibit the employment underground of persons under the age of 16 years, to prescribe for such young persons employed above ground in the mining industry a course of training in the principles of safety during their hours of employment, and to provide that, upon entering into employment underground after reaching the qualifying age, they shall not be employed in connection with machinery and shall be under the supervision of a charge-hand during the first three months.
About a fortnight ago it was my privilege to second a Bill providing for access


to mountains. To-night I am bringing forward a Motion to prevent access to mines, in certain conditions, for boys. By a curious coincidence, both when I tried to achieve access to mountains and am trying to prevent certain access to mines, the hon. and gallant Member who represents the constituency in which I reside has concerned himself with an Amendment to defeat my wishes. I must tell the hon. and gallant Member that I feel that I am being wounded in the house of a friend, and that if this sort of thing is to go on I shall have to come down to East Grinstead and take very drastic steps indeed about the matter. The House showed great generosity and good feeling on the question of access to mountains; I believe that it will show equal generosity to-night in regard to the Motion which I have just read. That Motion deals primarily with the employment of boys, but it refers also to safety in mines generally, and it is with that part of it that I wish first to deal.
The interests of the whole nation are served by the miners, and the nation owes them a particular debt. Everything which tends to humanity and to safety in mines, as I believe this Motion does, tends to make the miners feel less a race apart, as I believe many of them do to-day, and more a part of the whole national community they serve by their work. I say that in the presence of many hon. Friends who have much more knowledge and experience than I have myself of the mining community. I speak of the miners with very great diffidence indeed, but with the greatest respect. In my experience of life I have met with no better men. They are patient and enduring, with great qualities of dry humour and of commonsense. They give their labour in full measure, without stint, they are stoical and they have a wonderful sense of comradeship. They are brave men although, like all brave men, they do not want that talked about too much.
I am necessarily at a disadvantage in moving this Motion because at the moment we are awaiting the report of the Royal Commission. Unfortunately, it has not been presented before this Debate takes place. I noticed that the Secretary for Mines, speaking this month in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is reported—

that is to say, if he was reported correctly —to have used these words:
They set up a Royal Commission in 1935 and they would accept the recommendations of that Commission.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): That was not what I said. On purely commonsense grounds I would not prejudge a report which I had not seen. I made that quite clear in what I said. A fuller account of that speech which I have also seen made the same point. It is obvious that no one in a position of responsibility—or even in a position of irresponsibility—would accept a report which he had not seen. I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me the opportunity of clearing up that point.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I quite expected that explanation, and I was careful to preface my remarks by saying, "if the hon. and gallant Member had been correctly reported." Evidently that was not the case.

Captain Crookshank: I am much obliged.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: The report of his speech on that occasion—I hope that this part is correct—goes on:
Speaking of accidents in coal mines, he said that, of 780,000 workers employed last year, 850 were killed and over 140,000 injured. That was a very heavy proportion, and it did not apply to any other industry. They wanted to break that down. People employed in such a hazardous occupation were entitled to the best possible remuneration.
I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not quarrel with that part of the report of his speech.

Captain Crookshank: I quite agree with that.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: There has been no need for the Minister to wait for the publication of the Royal Commission's Report in order to do necessary things in connection with safety in mines. If the Mining Industry Acts as they stand were properly carried out, death and injury would be very considerably reduced. The Secretary for Mines has great powers, powers which do not involve the necessity for legislation. I am quite sure that, behind a somewhat worldly and cynical appearance, the Minister conceals a heart of gold; but, while he may administer his Department humanely, I confess I some-


times doubt whether he has any excessive will to initiate action in these matters. Safety must always be in the forefront of the consideration of mining matters, because danger cannot be wholly eliminated from mines. Coal lies in the bowels of the earth; you can only get it by going down into the earth after it in circumstances of danger; and the fact that this danger must always exist increases the responsibility of the House of Commons in considering legislation in regard to it. I do not want to quote too many figures, but, between 1920 and 1936, 2,399,492 miners were injured in the pits and 16,723 were killed. Those are terrible figures. The sailor is always considered to be a romantic figure facing great perils on the rolling deep, but the toll of injury in the mining industry is eight times as high as it is in that of shipping. The numbers employed in mining drop, but the accident rate increases.
In considering the question of safety, the all-important fact to remember is that technically the machine is revolutionising mining. Machine coal-cutting, as I have seen for myself, means a concentration of men at one spot; it means noise, dust, smoke, miles of electric cables, higher temperatures. All these things make for conditions of work which are more onerous, and which increase the strain on the nerves and on the limbs; and they all increase the risk of explosion and of fire. They demand increased standards of technical safeguards, of supervising staff and of ventilation. Mechanisation involves a greater release of fire damp; it means an increase in the potential sources of ignition; it calls for more intense labour; it calls for greater speed of labour; it brings the electric spark to the coal face; and the figures show that the accidents in the industry are highest in the most highly mechanised areas.
I have mentioned electricity; I have said that the electric spark has been brought to the coal face. In the 10 years ending with 1937, 155 men were killed in explosions due to the use of electricity, and that, to my mind, raises the question whether all the inspectors engaged in the mines are fully qualified technically for the adequate inspection of electrical apparatus. The incidence of accidents is shown by the figures to be highest where

electricity is most used, and, although I have not the figures for this country, I have seen some from the United States of America which show that explosions are not only most frequent, but most violent, where electricity is used. These figures from the United States show that the deaths per explosion caused by electricity are 15.1, while those due to open lights and smoking are 7.7, and to explosives are only 6.2.
There is another point which raises the question of the adequacy of inspection. I see that in the last 10 years there have been 113 explosions involving loss of life, and that 41 of these explosions took place during the night shift. That brings to my recollection a speech which the Minister made in July, when he referred to the necessity for increasing the number of inspectors, and said that, while he wanted 16 new inspectors, he had only been able to appoint 10, because the number of suitable candidates was disappointingly small. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to tell us to-night what the present position is in that regard, and whether he now considers the number of inspectors to be sufficient adequately to inspect all pits.

Captain Crookshank: On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but I should like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether, in view of the terms of the Motion, I should be in order in answering a variety of questions which he is putting to me? The Motion deals only with the employment of boys. I do not want to conceal anything; I am sure hon. Members opposite will grant me that; but I should like to know whether I should be in order in answering those questions at all. If I am to be precluded from answering, it does not seem to me to be of very much use to ask the questions.

Mr. Whiteley: On that point of Order. May I suggest that, while the Motion does refer to boys, the general question of safety in mines is also included in the Motion, and that probably the Secretary for Mines would be able to cover most of these points and still be in order on the Motion?

Captain Crookshank: I have often been told, when speaking to Motions, that I could only speak on the Motion that had been moved, and not on other questions; and, on the Motion that has now been


moved, it seems to me that it would be very difficult for me to answer questions about the number of inspectors and the like.

Mr. T. Smith: Further on the point of Order. May I point out that the preliminary sentence to my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion calls attention to the question of safety in mines, so that the Minister must surely have known that the Debate would extend further than the question of the employment of boys underground?

Mr. Garro Jones: If the Debate had reference to miners of all ages, then, surely, it would have been in order to bring in the effect of electrical explosions on miners of all ages, and, surely, therefore, in so far as such electrical explosions affect miners under 16, it is perfectly relevant to deal with them in the Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. and gallant Member must be bound by the terms of the Motion he has moved, and must relate his remarks to the question of the employment of boys.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I point out that I have only so far addressed to the Minister one question, and not a series of questions. The preliminary sentence of the Motion specifically calls attention to the question of safety in mines, and in my opening remarks I said I would deal with that point first and return to the question of boys later.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is true that the preliminary sentence calls attention to the question of safety in mines, but the Motion itself actually deals with the employment of boys, and we must keep within that.

Mr. George Griffiths: Further on the point of Order. Surely it would be in order to speak about the question of inspection in regard to boys under 16? That is a very strong point as far as workmen's inspectors are concerned. Only today the Secretary for Mines, in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), said that there had been no workmen's inspections in that district, and I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow my hon. and gallant Friend to proceed on that line.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be in order for the hon. and gallant Member to refer to anything having to do with boys, but the Motion itself is limited to boys in mines.

Mr. E. J. Williams: May I put it to you that accidents to boys in mines may be directly attributable to a shortage of inspectors?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would be in order, but we cannot go into the general question of inspectors in mines.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Surely this question of inspectors affects the safety of boys in mines as much as that of men. I realise, however, that the time at our disposal is short, and I am anxious that other Members should have an opportunity of speaking in the Debate, so will pass at once to the question of the employment of boys in mines and of the safety of boys in mines. In that respect the first thing I notice is that there is a very great discrepancy between the age at which boys are admitted to the mining industry in this country and that at which they are admitted to the industry in other countries. I see, for instance, that the age of admission to mining in France is 18, and in Germany and Holland 16; and in these two latter countries they are only allowed to begin work as hewers at the age of 21. In Russia the age is 18.
The question of safety of boys in mines is evidently affecting the entry of boys into the mining industry. There are 73,000 boys under 18 employed in the industry, so that a vast number are affected by the terms of this Motion; but it is clear that for some time the industry-has ceased to prove attractive to boys, and I have no doubt that that is largely due to the insufficiency of the provisions for their security. During the Debate on the Coal Royalties Bill, the matter was brought out by an hon. Member who spoke of a colliery agent who complained that he could not get boys into the pit. He said that they absolutely refused, and that his group of collieries were at their wits' ends for boy labour. The hon. Member attributed this to speeding-up and rationalisation, but I should imagine that it is also due to the fact that there is neither proper remuneration nor proper training for the boys in safety; and that on those two accounts, parents are inclined to say "no" when the question


arises of putting their boys to work in the pits. There is great anxiety on the part of owners to keep down costs. Boys of 16 and 17 are, no doubt, cheaper than young men of 20 and 21, or of older men, but my opinion is that the public will not mind paying a little more for their coal if it means increased safety for the boys. Better still, if any increase has to be made let the middlemen take a smaller profit. The industry must be made safer, and it must be made to pay a better reward.
As regards safety, the figures are very bad. There is a very heavy accident rate for boys under 18. It is noticeable that in 1937 the proportion of boys over 18 who were killed was 89 per thousand; but lack of experience tells its tale, and when one comes to the boys under 18, one finds that the figure goes up to 1.09. These figures relating to deaths and injuries among boys are deplorable, and we must face up to the facts which lie behind them. In the whole country in the three years 1935, 1936 and 1937 there were 149 boys under 18 killed, and in the two years 1935 and 1936 there were 22,772 boys under 18 injured. They were all killed or injured below ground. Those figures do not include deaths and injuries incurred above ground. When I was reading these figures, I noticed that it is stated that many of these boys were employed at one or two o'clock in the morning when they met death or injury. Of course, boys working at that time are sleepy, and, being sleepy, their attention is dulled and they are more likely to meet with accidents.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: What was the age of these boys when they were killed, and did the hon. and gallant Member say that death or injury occurred between one and two o'clock in the morning? Actually there was a Bill introduced by myself not long ago which prohibited the employment of boys under the age of 16 between nine o'clock at night and five o'clock in the morning, and that Bill has since become law.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I stated quite definitely that the boys were under 18 years of age, and I said that the accounts showed that some were employed at one or two o'clock in the morning when they met with their injuries or were killed. Those facts I believe to be correct. The death rate among boys is

almost as high as that for all other persons employed in mines. The accident rate is considerably higher for these boys. Of every 1,000 miners injured we find that 229 were under 16, and then, as the age goes up, the number decreases. There are only 188 per thousand among miners between the ages of 20 and 25 and 130 between the ages of 60 and 65. The younger the miner, the greater his liability to accident. The safety of these boys lies on the national conscience. That conscience ought not to wait until there is a disaster before it is aroused. There is plenty of sympathy when there is a disaster, but what the miners and these boys want is a square deal all the time; and public opinion will always back a Government that gives them a square deal.
I turn to the question of safety classes for boys. The Coal Mines General Regulations do not prescribe a course of training for boys entering the industry, but safety officers have here and there been appointed to instruct the boys on entrance, and colliery managers agree that this minimises the accident rate. I notice a statement from Burnhope Colliery, in Durham, that boys there are trained in haulage operations and the use of safety appliances before going below at the age of 16. The results are stated to be good. Again, from Yorkshire it is stated to be beyond doubt that the accident rates among those who have qualified for safety badges is much less than it is among others. Injuries among boys under 16 are at the rate of 207 per thousand in the case of badge-holders, but the rate goes up to 319 per thousand in the case of non-badge-holders. These figures form a very strong argument for a compulsory scheme of safety classes. They prove the value of these classes. Attendance at these classes is a beginning. The boys must also be supervised at work when they go below until they get practical experience. Training, supervision and discipline all enter into this question of safety; all are required; and until such classes are made compulsory the boys should be encouraged to attend the voluntary classes. They should be given time off in order to do so, and they should be paid for the time occupied in attendance at those classes.
I have been very much struck by facts brought to my notice by my hon. Friend who is going to wind up this Debate from


our side. He has shown me papers from the Durham Miners' Association, recommending that boys should not work below ground before they reach the age of 16, except on one day per week, in order to gain experience and pit sense, and that that exception should apply only during the six months immediately before they attain the age of 16. A further very wise recommendation is that boys under 16 years of age should not be employed with machinery, and should work under the supervision of a charge hand during the first three months. Also, that there should be no employment on the conveyor face before the age of 21, except under strict supervision.
I wish to call attention to some things that are actually being done on the lines of those recommendations in the Warwickshire coalfield. Incidentally, the Warwickshire coalowners have agreed with the county education authority to give boys one day off each week to attend day classes if they have shown ability while attending the County Mining School. In these cases the owners pay three-quarter wages for that attendance and they pay school fees also. I cannot help wondering why, if that is done in that respect, the same principle cannot be adopted as regards safety training. I wish also to quote the methods employed by a manager of one of the modern mines in the Warwickshire coalfield. He told me that boys start work in the pit bottom to get their pit eyesight. The roads in this particular mine are large and well lit, and so the boys can be effectively supervised and kept out of danger. When a boy goes down for the first time he is seen below by the under-manager, who has a talk with him about safety and then hands him over to the pit bottom foreman who has another talk to him about safety. Then the boy starts work under an experienced youth and within easy reach of the pit bottom foreman who makes it his business frequently to have a word with the boy. The manager told me that the boy is kept in the pit bottom as long as possible. Then he is moved to the loading points where he is employed chalking numbers on the filled wagons. Later he is put on to coupling and uncoupling and when he reaches the age of 21 he may go to assist a man on cleaning coal cutter undercut or assisting with the conveyor moving

team. At 23 he is put to work in charge of a piece of face, and as openings arise he goes on to packing, filling and coal-cutting. That is the system which is in operation in this particular mine in the Warwickshire coalfield.
There are safety classes at this mine every Saturday morning which are compulsory for boys of 14 and 15. There are demonstrations of explosions at the safety classes, and there is a model haulage plant in operation for training, and the boys are taken below for tours of the colliery. There is an examination after the safety classes finish, and those who do well, as a reward, are given safety medals and also a trip to Buxton. That is what is being done at well-managed collieries such as that. Good owners are already doing much of what we in this Motion want to be done, and I should like to ask, if I may venture to put another question to the Minister without his taking exception to it, why it should be the bad owners who regulate the rate of progress in this matter?
When I was considering what I should say in support of this Motion to-night, very naturally I was led to reflect on my own training in safety matters in the Navy and on the training which I myself later on had to give to midshipmen and boys entering the Navy in matters of safety. I ask the House to reflect how essential safety regulations and training in safety must of necessity be in the Navy. Imagine the mass of whirling machinery in the engine rooms, the super-heated steam at tremendous pressure in the boiler rooms, the hydraulic machinery packed in cramped, confined spaces in the gun turrets, the wires and cables subjected to enormous strains when making ships fast alongside or when moored, magazines crammed with high explosives, store rooms containing gun-cotton charges, detonators and fuses; the mines, torpedoes and depth charges on board. The whole ship is a warehouse of destructive forces surrounded by a hostile element and yet how free the Navy is from death and injury by accidents. The low incidence of accidents in the Navy is a great tribute to the care and the wisdom with which the safety regulations have been framed and to the loyalty and discipline of those who supervise and those who observe them. Had the same high standards been laid down and observed in the mining industry, I


wonder whether that disaster at Gresford would ever have happened.
There are three main reasons for this low accident rate in the Navy, mention of which is, I think, quite appropriate to this Debate to-night. First of all, training. Every newly-joined officer and boy in the Navy is given the fullest, the most thorough and the most patient training in all that concerns his own safety and the safety of others and of the ship. Secondly, there is no profit motive in the Navy. You do not get a monetary reward for exceeding the contract speed. There is no bonus to be earned by taking a chance and trying to do a record shoot at battle practice, or to make a record time when mooring ships. I think that the absence of the profit motive is one of the great reasons why we enjoy so much safety in the Navy. There is a third reason. When there is an accident there is a remorseless inquiry into the cause with no respect for persons whatsoever, and with just but inflexible punishment for those who are shown to have been responsible.
I spoke of Gresford. Can hon. Members imagine an explosion in a ship killing 260 men, following by an inquiry, which proved gross negligence on the part of many concerned, and the First Lord then coming to the House to say that it was all very regrettable, it was really rather a pity to discuss it at all and possibly stir up some bitterness, and that really everyone on the whole had done more or less what they ought to have done, and all those concerned would go on with their jobs or be given other jobs equally as good if not better? Yet that was the burden of the speech which the Minister made to us when we debated the findings of the report of the Gresford Inquiry. Why should the Navy, which exists to serve the State, have a higher code in safety matters than the mining industry whose labour is every bit as necessary to the life of the State as that of the three Defence Services? What a contrast these facts show between the ethics of State service and the ethics of private enterprise and private profit.
I ask the House to accept this Motion, the terms of which are humane and are also certainly just, and I ask some hon. Members to remember what fears and anxieties they have felt when launching

their sons even upon quite safe, lucrative and distinguished careers. Surely we must be actuated, in gratefulness for what some of us enjoy, by generous motives when we think of these lads of 14 going below ground for the first time to begin a lifetime of arduous and dangerous toil. As I was looking through some copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT in connection with this Motion I noticed the account of two accidents. Cyril Bentley, 14 years and three months, fatally injured, assisting an onsetter and the Secretary for Mines said that it was on work which was quite unsuitable for that boy. Kenneth Oliver, 14 years, killed six days after being taken on, while he was engaged uncoupling tubs. That boy had attended no safety classes, and the Secretary for Mines said that
such work was not, in my opinion, suitable for a boy who had only been at the pit for six days.
These lads, beginning the life of a breadwinner and killed at the age of 14, at an age when other boys, more happily situated, are writing home about their prospects of getting their colours for some game, with long happy years at school and university still in front of them before they need even begin to think about what they will do to earn a living. I have mentioned the names of Cyril Bentley and Kenneth Oliver because, if this House accepts the Motion, it may be some satisfaction to their parents to think that those two deaths were quoted in this House in an endeavour to get more humane and more just treatment for other boys.
I was speaking to a working miner this morning, and he told me of the first time he went down the pit, at the age of 13. The cage dropped rather quickly and he felt that spasm in the stomach that we sometimes feel when the lift drops a bit too quickly. He told me that, in the dark, an old hand, who knew just what he was feeling, patted him on the shoulder, without saying anything, and that that little act of reassurance remains with him to this day. When I heard that, I remembered a similar incident which I saw when I was the officer of a turret in a ship in which I served, which had two great 15-inch guns. I remember being in the turret waiting to open fire. There is the roar and rattle of the cages as the guns are loaded and then the great breeches of the guns swinging


slowly, almost imperceptibly, to and fro as the sights are brought on to the target. It is a moment of tension, even for the most experienced officer, just at the particular moment when you are waiting not knowing when the roar of discharge will come as the guns are fired by the officer in the director tower aloft. Looking round, I saw a boy who had just come to sea. This was his first ship, and his first experience of hearing the big guns fired. He looked, not unnaturally, very white and strained. An officer noticed what the boy was feeling and without interrupting his duties put an arm round the boy's shoulder and kept it there until the first salvo had been fired. The old miner in the cage, reassuring the lad of 13, and the officer in the turret acted on the same human instinct to reassure a boy startled by his first contact with an unknown, alarming experience. I ask the House to accept this Motion, and in doing so to put an arm round the shoulders of all lads embarking upon the life of a miner, and to tell them that we in this House care for their safety.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Daggar: I beg to second the Motion.
It is not strange and, therefore, not without explanation, that an explosion in a mine excites considerable attention and also innumerable expressions of sympathy. Were that not the case, all of us would have ceased to be human. It is upon such occasions, and only upon such occasions, that this House regards the miner's employment as a very dangerous one. Warmth and comfort provided by the mine workers of this country are not fully appreciated by those who enjoy them. Evidence in support of that statement is found in the fact that insufficient consideration is given to the Measures introduced in this House from time to time with the object of improving the conditions of the miners. I refer to wages, safety and compensation questions.
After years of incessant agitation in this House we shall probably have a new Mines Act to take the place of the present Act, which has long been obsolete—it is 27 years old—when the report of the Royal Commission has been received. While explosions attract attention, the same attention is not given to the much

more prolific causes of death in the mines. I mean the number of deaths due to falls of roof and sides, shaft accidents and haulage accidents. With the exception of accidents above ground, these causes were accountable for 19,142 deaths during the last 20 years, an average of about 1,000 per year. That is a terrible price to pay for coal. Explosions accounted for 1,329 deaths during the same period, making a total of 20,471 deaths in 20 years. That means that in 20 years the number of deaths from the causes I have mentioned amount to 20 times more than those due to explosions. Another calculation shows that more lives have been lost through these three causes than the number of lives lost by explosions since 1851, a period of 86 years.
I desire, in connection with explosions, to say that unless the owners of a pit can show that they have taken every possible means to prevent such a catastrophe, an explosion should be made a criminal offence. That cannot be the case now, as the enormous pitheaps show. Explosions are due to accumulations of gas, which can be removed only by adequate ventilation. I have not so far mentioned the number of persons injured in the mines which, below and above ground, totalled over 3,000,000 during the period of 20 years. This, together with the number of deaths, makes up the chief items of the bill presented for coal, and I hope to be able to show that many of these accidents are preventable. In order to achieve that object at least two conditions are necessary. In the first place the owners of the pit must be compelled by Act of Parliament to stow old working places, and, secondly, the Secretary for Mines must pay some attention to the suggestions made year in and year out by His Majesty's inspectors of mines, and must not be so susceptible to the suggestions made by the heads of his Department, some of whom possess considerable bias.
Unlike his predecessor, the present Minister has not, to his credit, told us what the future has in store. His predecessor boastingly informed us that the day of great explosions was past. In the month when the lay preacher indulged in that prophecy we had the greatest explosion that has happened within the last 24 years. I was pleased to note that the present Secretary for Mines said in his speech, in presenting the Estimates of his Department that:


The fact does remain that during last year the record of accidents has been very bad.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but I must remind him that the Motion which he is seconding starts:
That in view of the increasing number of accidents to boys employed in mines,
and I must ask him to confine his observations to that matter.

Mr. Daggar: I hope you will allow me to complete the quotation from the speech of the Secretary for Mines:
The fact does remain that during last year the record of accidents has been very bad, and I think I am not going too far in saying that the industry must be prepared for a drastic strengthening of the precautions.
The figures which have been issued from time to time by the Department show that of 7,783 persons killed in the mines during the last 10 years, 4,687 fatalities were due to falls of ground and the remainder were due to accidents in the shaft, haulage and other causes. The number injured during the same period was 504,272 from falls of ground, out of a total of 962,000. In that number, during the period 1927 to 1937, are included the number of boys under 16 years of age, and it shows that 318 were killed above and below ground and that the number disabled for more than three days was 67,709. They were killed and injured at a period in their lives when the sons of hon. Members who are opposing this Motion are commencing their education. In regard to this subject the Chief Inspector of Mines in his report says:
Accidents from falls of ground accounted for 51 per cent. of all the serious accidents occurring underground during the year.
I am afraid, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have made preparations for dealing with the general question of safety in mines, and I am not disposed to violate your Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must adhere to my Ruling and ask the hon. Member to keep to the Motion on the Paper.

Mr. Daggar: In that case I will formally second the Motion, and await a further opportunity of dealing with the general question.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in line I, to leave out from the word "the," to

the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
large number of accidents to boys employed underground in coal mines, this House would welcome legislation to deal with the matter, and feels, subject to consideration of the Report of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines, that such legislation should prohibit the employment of boys underground except after suitable training above ground and subject to proper supervision.
The Motion and the Amendment deal with the question of the employment of boys in coal mines. It is a problem which has given cause for a good deal of anxious thought on the part of those connected with the industry, and although the Motion does not enable us to debate the wider aspects of safety in mines, I do not think the House is wasting its time in debating the narrower question of the employment of boys of 16 arid under in the mines. I hope to be able to convince some hon. Members that the Amendment is an improvement on the terms of the Motion, and that it in fact represents the greatest common measure of agreement which this House is likely to reach on this question.

Mr. Whiteley: The hon. Member has said that his Amendment is an improvement on the Motion. If he will accept the 16 years we will agree.

Mr. Peake: I shall deal with that point in the course of my remarks. The hon. and gallant Member in moving his Motion referred in rather wide terms to many other industries besides coal-mining and he referred specially to the Royal Navy and merchant shipping. The Royal Navy has the advantage of being able to enforce a strict discipline which the miners of this country, I feel sure, would not accept even under a national system, and I think the hon. and gallant Member, if he refers to the statistics for the merchant shipping industry, will find that the death rate from accidents is higher than it is in the coal mines. It is, of course, in serious injuries and lighter injuries that the figures of the coal mines are so appallingly high.
Having said that on the general question let me confine my remarks entirely to the problem of employment of boys. The Mover of the Motion, whose speech we all greatly admired, will admit that he has chosen a somewhat inconvenient moment for bringing the question before the House. A Royal Commission has been sitting for


close upon three years. It has heard a mass of evidence and its report, I am told, although I have not seen it, will run to something over 500 pages. The Commission itself incorporates the best possible personnel for coming to right conclusions upon questions such as this, and it would have been a great advantage had we had that report before debating this Motion. That is one of the reasons why I think my Amendment is an improvement on the Motion; it is in more general terms and does not bind the House too closely to specific detail before we have had the advantage of seeing the report of the Royal Commission and its recommendations upon the questions raised by the Motion.

Mr. Batey: That is the weakness of your Amendment.

Mr. Peake: Let me point out the weakness of the Motion. It contains one statement of fact and one only. The Motion states:
That, in view of the increasing number of accidents to boys employed in mines"—
and it goes on to refer to the employment of boys under 16. I think it is a fair inference from that, that in the opinion of the Mover of the Motion the number of accidents to boys in mines is increasing at the present time. That is not the fact. It is not the number of accidents which is increasing, but the accident rate per 1,000 employed, which, as hon. Members who have studied these matters know, is a very different thing. In order that we may have the matter absolutely clear, I will give the figures of accidents to boys under 16 in the mines during the last three years—

Mr. T. Smith: And the numbers employed.

Mr. Peake: Yes. I have fortified myself with all the relevant figures on this question. In 1935, those killed numbered 25; in 1936, 24; in 1937, 21. Those injured underground numbered in 1935, 4,873; in 1936, 4,736; and in 1937, 4,454. Both those tables show a decline, but it is, of course, the rate of accidents per 1,000 employed which is the cause of concern not only to hon. Members opposite, but to all those who have to do with the coal-mining industry. The increase in the rate of killed and injured underground

per 1,000 employed during the last three years was as follows: in 1935, 254; in 1936, 279; and in 1937, 281. Of course, although the actual number of accidents has fallen, the effective rate per 1,000 employed has increased owing to a decrease in the number of boys employed underground from 19,200 in 1935 to 16,000 in 1937.

Mr. S. O. Davies: That is, if you had more men you would kill more.

Mr. Peake: There is an important aspect of this which hon. Members should bear in mind; that is, that in considering the rate of accidents per 1,000 employed, the state of trade and the regularity of work are a very important factor, for obviously, as hon. Members will recognise, if trade is good and employment is regular, the number of days in the year on which boys and men alike are exposed to the risks of mining is greater than it is in a year of poor trade and irregular employment; so that the rate per 1,000 employed does not reflect absolutely accurately the real position as regards accidents. Now, 1937 was the most active year the coal trade has had for many years, and the average number of working days in the pits rose from 246 in 1935 to 266 in 1937. Those figures increased, as hon. Members will see, in almost exactly the same ratio as the increase in the accident rate per 1,000 employed of boys underground during those three years.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely, the hon. Member does not suggest that boys were always employed on those days?

Mr. Peake:: No, I am taking the average figure of days on which the pits were working in the country as a whole.

Mr. Shinwell: That does not indicate that boys were employed on every day.

Mr. Peake: Of course not.

Mr. Shinwell: Then that vitiates the hon. Member's case.

Mr. Peake: One has to work on average figures in all these matters. The really effective criterion of the improvement or falling off in the position as regards accidents in mines is per 100,000 man-shifts worked. The Samuel Commission went into the question of accidents very carefully and came to the clear conclusion that that was the best criterion by which to judge the accident rates. Unfortunately,


no figures are available for boys separately on the basis of accidents per 100,000 man-shifts worked; but we have figures for the industry as a whole, and they go to show that whereas in 1935 the accident rate was 82½ per 100,000 man-shifts worked, in 1937 it was slightly below, at 80, so that there has been a slight—not a very substantial, but a slight—improvement in the safety of mining as a whole during the three years 1935 to 1937. The distressing fact, and the fact with which we are all concerned this evening, is that the accident rate among boys during the same period has not shown any decrease, and that the accident rate for boys is disproportionately high and substantially in excess of the average accident rate for all classes of workers. That disproportion has grown in recent years. At the time of the Samuel Commission, although, of course, accidents generally were a source of concern to all of us, there was not then the special problem of the excessive accident rate for boys. It is only during the last eight or 10 years that the problem of an excessive rate of accidents to boys has become a pressing, urgent and difficult problem.

Mr. E. J. Williams: The hon. Member will appreciate that the miners are working longer hours.

Mr. Peake: Longer hours than whom?

Mr. T. Smith: Than in 1935.

Mr. Peake: That is another side of the issue which makes it so difficult to get an exact comparison. As against an accident rate per 1,000 employed of 207—that is to say, for killed and injured—at the present time, the rate for boys under 16 is 287, and for boys from 16 to 18, 236. Those figures show the problem with which we are faced. What is the cause of this excessive accident rate for boys? I have no doubt that much evidence has been tendered to the Royal Commission on the causes of the increased accident rate. Personally, I believe it is very largely due to the change that has taken place in mining technique during the last five or six years. Instead of boys being able to go underground with their fathers, uncles or other relatives and to work in places with them, the boys are now separated from the older folks; they cannot get the same atten-

tion and guidance; and there does not seem to be the same close supervision over boys that there was in the old days when coal was won by hand.
At the same time, one finds some extremely puzzling figures if one studies closely the reports of the Chief Inspector of Mines. Why, for instance, should the accident rate among boys under 16 be twice as high in the Northern area, Northumberland and Durham, as it is in Scotland, although in Scotland mechanisation in the mines has been pressed further and began sooner than it did in any other coalfield? It is a very puzzling picture of the situation. Whatever the causes may be, there is no doubt that, for some years past, as the hon. Member who moved the Motion pointed out, the industry has been fully alive to the growing nature of this problem. It was, I think, in 1931 that in Yorkshire we initiated the movement to which the hon. Member referred, the safety badge movement—the evening classes for boys employed in mines, coupled with the giving of a badge to those who go through the whole course and pass the examination at the end. That movement has spread to all the principal coalfields and is now, I think, well-established everywhere. As the Mover of the Motion said, it has proved its own success. There are definite figures to show that the accident rate among badge winners is lower than it is among those who have not gone through these courses and obtained badges.
Besides that, many colliery companies have prepared handbooks—which seems to be rather the thing nowadays in dealing with difficult situations—which they give out to the boys on starting work. I hold in my hand a rather vividly coloured one of which I shall be pleased to provide a copy for any hon. Member who is interested. This book is now handed out in the collieries with which I have the honour to be associated. In addition, there have been some very interesting experiments in Scotland in regard to safety. Hon. Members who study the "Iron and Coal Trades Review" will have read with interest a report of what the Fife Coal Company has been doing for some years past. This very striking document which appeared in the issue of 25th November shows that the company is doing great pioneer work. Apart from what I may call the ordinary apparatus of accident prevention, such as hand-


books, posters, safety committees and so forth, the company goes in for what can only be described as something akin to football pools. The report says:
It has been clearly proved that various forms of monetary reward assist to intensify interest in the campaign and several new competitions have been successful. During the months of May, June and July, the company offered 40 free excursions to the Empire Exhibition to be drawn for by those employés who did not have an accident in those months…The success of this scheme has led to one in which 40 free gifts of clothing have been allocated in the same way…The accident-free monthly bonus to firemen has given way to a lottery conducted at the colliery monthly safety meetings, where accident-free underground districts and surfaces are allocated sums of money to be drawn in prizes.

Mr. E. J. Williams: These are not substitutes for wages?

Mr. Peake: No, these are definite monetary inducements for which the workmen can compete. They are, as I says, in the nature of lotteries or pools, but they appear to have contributed in a remarkable way to increased safety in the mine because the company has reduced the rate for all accidents per 100,000 man-shifts, from 58 in 1933, to 24, or less than half that number, in 1938. As regards boys under 16, the accident rate has fallen from 1.6 in 1933 to 0.6 in 1938. Of course it is necessary, in discussing a new scheme of this kind, to enter a caveat. First, one wonders whether, when the novelty has worn off, the enthusiasm will continue and the progress be maintained. Secondly, there is this point: The Fife Coal Company keep a record of the accidents which occur to individual men, and they find that some men are more prone than others to accidents. For instance men with defective eyesight are much more prone to accidents underground than men with good eyesight. There is obviously a tendency in a scheme of this kind, where districts in a pit are set in competition one with another, and collieries are set in competition wth other colleries, for men who are prone to accidents and who have had one or two accidents to be turned away and refused re-employment. That is one of the dangers of a scheme of that kind.
The industry, as I say, is alive to this problem. I think we should all agree with the basis of the case made by the

Mover of this Motion that more training and better supervision probably represent the best line of approach to the problem. I think there would be common agreement in all parts of the House that better training should be provided and a closer supervision of these boys maintained. In two detailed respects, however, I find some fault with the terms of the Motion. First, it would prevent boys being taken underground under the age of 16, even for the purposes of training. The Mover, I think, admitted, in quoting with approval the case of a particular colliery, that it would be a good thing for boys to go underground, possibly once a week, in order to get what is called pit sense. Many people in the industry, both mining officials and men who work in the pits, to whom I have spoken, think it is better for boys if they are not given work which is too arduous or too difficult, to go underground before they are 16. It is thought that a boy is more ready to learn and to take advice from older people while he is under 16, than when he gets above that age.

Mr. McLean Watson: Is it not a fact that the Fife Company, whose scheme the hon. Member has just described, do not allow boys under 16 to go underground?

Mr. Peake: Except for certain classes of work. There is a tendency under the Fife scheme to exclude boys below 16 generally, but boys do go underground there, not only for purposes of training but for certain easy forms of work. The terms of the Motion would, as I say, preclude boys under 16 going underground at all and there are many in the industry, not only on the side of the management but also on the side of the men who think that that would be a mistake. In the second place, the Motion provides that boys having attained the age of 16 shall not be employed in connection with machinery and that they shall be under the supervision of a charge hand during their first three months. There is, however, no definition of machinery, and some definition would obviously be necessary, because there are many kinds of machinery which, as everybody knows, no boy would be permitted to go near for many years after he had reached the age of 16. I do not like the sort of implied permission in the Motion for a boy to be put in connection with almost any


class of machinery after only three months under the supervision of a charge hand. On these grounds, I submit that my Amendment is a better means of obtaining what the Motion aims at and that it will achieve our common end without prejudging the report of the Royal Commission, which will very shortly be in our hands.

9.16 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), who moved the Motion, commented on the fact that during the last fortnight I had on two occasions opposed him, and he added that he felt he had been wounded in the house of a friend. While I greatly deplore that he feels wounded, I am glad that he still continues to regard me as a friend, and I look at that too as some indication of his following a policy of appeasement, though from his subsequent remarks I gather he is also preparing to discuss rearmament to some extent. I feel however, that on this occasion we are not really very far apart. I do not know that we were the other day, but to-day it is much more that we, on this side, are not prepared to go into such detail as he has done in his Motion. Our Amendment is much the same, but it does not go into the same amount of detail. I would like to re-echo certain of his remarks about the character, courage, and hardihood of our miners. I am glad to say that my first contact with miners was not a commercial one at all. It took place during the War, with a mining company of the East Lancashire division in Gallipoli, and my men used to work in the galleries drawing out the sandbags full of soil that the miners cut. We were playing only a very humble part, but I learned to admire tremendously the skill with which those galleries were made and the courage of the men who manned the listening posts at the ends while waiting to hear the Turkish miners getting nearer every day.
I am not prepared to support the Motion, because, as I say, it goes into too much detail. At the same time, I cannot exaggerate my feelings as to the seriousness of this question. It is a very distressing fact, whether the actual number of deaths and injuries to boys are

increasing or not, that they are as great as they are in proportion to those of the older men. But in that connection one must remember that there are certain characteristics of boys, such as inexperience, impetuosity, and curiosity, which I am afraid will always lead to their getting into more trouble and more accidents than men. I appreciate this question the better, because I have a boy who will be 14 in a month or two, and one does in such circumstances appreciate the views of other people who may be sending boys of an age very near to that into the pit. A previous speaker referred to the fact that it is difficult to-day to get boys to go into the pit at all and that that was quite likely connected with this question of injuries, particularly from the point of view of the parents. I believe that is so, but I think one could in fairness point out that the same difficulty prevails to-day in many other industries that involve hard manual labour. We have just the same difficulty in getting boys to go into the agricultural industry, and I think it applies to other industries of the same sort. I believe that another factor connected with it is that in those industries there is much less chance of a bright boy getting on than he would stand in certain other industries, an office, a garage, or something of that sort.
To return to the terms of the original Motion and the Amendment, we are both agreed that the number of accidents is still much too high. It is really tragically high. The very expression that the industry uses of "winning" coal suggests that mining is a dangerous occupation and has a suggestion of war and the casualties that are inherent in war. It is really a continuous battle with the forces of nature, though in war casualties can be reduced and even avoided, just as the Mover of the Motion said, when speaking of the training of boys in the Navy—and the same thing applies in the Army—that the best trained troops are those which have the fewest casualties. Training involves lessons in what one has to do, but unless it is accompanied with a measure of discipline, and in industry, of course, a measure of self-discipline, it is difficult always to see that instructions are carried out. I know it is the duty of the Board of Trade and the Mines Department to frame suitable regulations, and of


the management to see that they are not only circulated but also understood, but I think every man and every boy has the duty both to himself and to his fellows to conform to them. I am sure that much can be done by training to see that these orders and arrangements are conformed to.
There is a great deal, I am sure, in training in the principles of safety before going down the pit, and that is another point on which both the Motion and the Amendment agree. I believe that safety classes are the best way of imparting this instruction. At present, in most districts, these classes are run by the local education committees, and while I do not in any way want to disparage their work—I am a county councillor myself, and I know how hard these education committees work—I feel that classes directly under colliery control may be more practical and perhaps a little more lacking in red tape, and also have the advantage that practical demonstrations, as well as lessons, can be given. In certain collieries this is already being done. I believe that one of the earliest and best examples is that of the Lambton, Hetton and Joicey collieries in Durham which since 1931 have had a training ground, the first training ground in the Northern division, and for seven years now have been giving these training courses. There is a very good account, with pictures, in the report of the Inspector of Mines for 1934.
The badges are, I think, of great value, and one must pay a tribute to the district welfare committees in this connection. There are a number of other pits in Durham too to-day which have provided similar facilities for training at the pithead, but it is a very sad thing, as has been said, that the Northern division still shows such a high average of accidents, and, curiously enough, not only below ground but above ground too, which is difficult to understand, and also between the ages of 16 and 18 as well as between the ages of 14 and 16. I would like to mention another useful system of avoiding accidents to boys, and to older men, too, which, I think, shows that the present capitalist system in spite of what the hon. Gentleman said just now about it can be used in the right way to avoid accidents. It is a

system by which any deputy who, during the month has not had an accident to the men under his charge, causing them to be absent from duty for over three days, receives a bonus of 10s. This system is practised at Manvers Main and I think that it is a very admirable system. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment referred to the Fife Coal Company, and it is perhaps unfair that their neighbours, the Wemyss Coal Company, should not also have a small measure of praise. Before 1933 the Wemyss Coal Company had organised classes and made itself responsible for the training of boys in the neighbourhood of the company's mines. I want to mention this, particularly because part of that training consists of personally conducted tours underground.
Here is a point in which I differ from the Mover of the Motion, for I believe that this training would be made more difficult if no boy were allowed-to go underground until he was 16 years of age. As I understand the Motion, that is what is intended. I notice in the report of the Inspector of Mines for the Northern Division for 1937, these words:
Nowadays safety classes are recognised as an almost essential preliminary to a mining career; but I should like to emphasise at the risk of repetition that boys must have practical training underground in addition.
Of course, a specially reserved part of the mine might be kept for that training, but I do feel that practical training entirely at the pithead would be inadequate if it were not accompanied by some practical training underground as well. Instruction, like mercy, blesses both him that gives and him that takes, and the fact that a colliery is having safety classes will raise the standard of safety right through that colliery, and not only for the boys who are actually being taught. Anybody who takes part in any form of instruction realises that it often does him more good than those whom he is trying to instruct. I realise, of course, that in many European countries boys under 16, and even of rather higher ages, are not allowed to go down the pits. I believe that in Germany they are kept in the workshops round the pithead until they are 16. Of course, that is possible and it is done in this country in the case of large collieries, but it might be difficult to find work round


small collieries, and particularly isolated collieries; but if it were accompanied by training and the usual work that there is on the screens, I believe it would not be impossible, and I hope something of that sort will be done.
I am afraid I disagree with the Motion on one other point. It says that boys "shall not be employed in connection with machinery." I cannot help feeling that looking after the smaller machines—the smaller haulage engines, for example—is really a much safer job for a boy than being at the coal face, and, as my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment said, they are forbidden by law to work with larger machines—I think haulage engines over 10 horse-power. I feel that there the Motion is a little too drastic. Again I feel that perhaps to insist that for the first three months boys should be under the supervision of a charge hand is too drastic. The principle is excellent, but boys, like men, vary very much. Some need longer and some shorter experience, and I feel that if supervision is continued too long it becomes in some cases irksome and irritating, both for the boy who is supervised and for the man who has to supervise, and there should be some latitude in that provision. I think the words of the Amendment in that connection are rather more practical.
Finally, let me say that the Amendment and the Motion are, I think, very much the same in principle, and the same motive and intention lie behind them. Both wish to try to reduce the present serious incidence of casualties among boys and young persons in our mines, but I feel that the Amendment, for the reasons I have given, and in view of the fact that we expect the Report of the Royal Commission in a very short time, and further because it keeps rather more to principles and rather less to details, is really better than the Motion, and therefore I have great pleasure in supporting it.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think that the whole House will have appreciated the spirit which has been shown in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, and if the whole of the coal mining industry could be conducted in the same spirit there would be very much less likelihood of serious difference in the House on important questions con-

netted with the coal mining industry. It is a very great thing that those who speak on behalf of the coalowners should be at one with the hon. and gallant Mover of the Motion in the principle he advocates. We can, I think, congratulate ourselves on the way in which the public conscience of the country is moving in this direction. The figures that were read out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), when translated into the terms of human life and of the suffering and misery caused in the homes of boys who have been killed or seriously maimed, speak better than any argument for the need for more drastic action to prevent such a tragedy. I think that the hon. Member for North Leeds felt that the Motion was too particular in its details, and he preferred more general terms, but his own Amendment is surely too general. He does not define what he means by boys. He says:
such legislation should prohibit the employment of boys underground except after suitable training above ground.
He does not say at what age that prohibition is to be effective. It is surely essential that Parliament should indicate a definite age. Sixteen is a reasonable age, and I do not think it can be the intention of the Mover of the Motion and those who support it that boys under 16 should be prevented from going underground for purposes of training and education, but not for purposes of employment. It should be possible for a boy working on the surface to go down at certain intervals under supervision to see what the work underground is, not to be employed as a wage-earner, but to do it as part of his training for future work. It ought to be practicable for boys who are employed up to 16 on the surface to have opportunities for education in connection with their training through visits to the mines. I do not believe it is intended to prevent any such educational visits underground under the age of 16.

Mr. Whiteley: The Mover of the Motion pointed out that between 15½ and 16 there could be arrangements made for the boys to go down a pit one day a week for special training.

Mr. Harvey: I agree, but it was urged on the other side that the terms of the Motion would prevent boys going underground under 16. The hon. and gallant Member who seconded pointed that out, too, and I think there is a misunderstand-


ing. Surely the Motion is in harmony with the improvement which the House has already made in the conditions of juvenile labour for factory work. We need to have further provision for the protection of young workers in connection with machinery. As the country will shortly witness the carrying into effect of the educational reform which will raise the school age to 15 for, I hope, the vast majority of children, it is only a question here of the one year between 15 and 16. It ought to be possible to make arrangements for boys to get suitable preparatory work during that year before they go underground.
I do not believe that any coalowner would wish his own son to go underground to work under the age of 16. I have a personal friend, a coal miner, who is a son of a coal miner, and who married a miner's daughter. He is determined that his only son shall not go underground and become a coal miner because he has seen in his own experience the tragedies that have come to families of his relatives and friends, and he is not under present conditions willing for his son to undertake the task that he has been bravely carrying on himself. If we look at it in that way, through the eyes of someone who is going through this work and who knows it from within, we shall look at it in a different way than if we merely deal with it on grounds of abstract economy. In the long run it could never be satisfactory for an industry to depend upon juvenile labour working under conditions which produce the death and accident rates which have been described to us by my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds. On that ground I hope, while appreciating greatly the spirit in which he spoke, that the House will not accept his Amendment, but will pass the Motion.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to support this Motion as it is framed. Fault has been found at the way in which the Motion is worded, but I have no objection to it, and I trust I may be able to persuade the House with the figures I propose to put before it that the Motion as it is framed is all right. We have been given a few reasons why boys are not now going into the pits. The hon. Member who moved the Motion used the illustration of the Navy. The hon. and gallant

Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) thought that it was perhaps the lack of discipline in the mines that had much to do with the greater accident rate. He also said that probably the hard work was preventing boys going into the mines, as it was preventing them going into agriculture. Perhaps he is right, because the work of boys in the mines to-day is harder than it has ever been. The introduction of machinery and mechanisation is the crux of the accident rate. It is deplorable that we cannot recognise it. I want to tell hon. Members opposite who speak for the coal-mining industry that, just as we are losing the peasantry from the land and will find it difficult in future to get men to go back to the land, so, as we lose the mining class in the true sense of the word, we shall have difficulty in getting men to fill our mines again.
The accident rate among boys is alarming. We may have classes on the surface and classes underground, if necessary, but there is one factor in the accident rate that will not be met by classes. Down in the bowels of the earth where men and boys are not seen, there is piecework, and as long as that exists it will be the driving weapon that undoubtedly causes the high percentage of accidents. I want to draw the attention of the Secretary for Mines to some things over which boys have no control even if they do attend safety classes. What could be more regrettable than that a boy of 14 or 15 should be killed in a mine because his head was caught between the roof and a tub? The boy has no control over that; it is a matter for the management. The inspector's report for the Northern Division says that practically all the boys under 16 years of age who are injured are injured in the haulage way. They are either caught between tubs or between tubs and an obstacle. A boy has no control over that sort of thing, even if he attends safety classes.
I want to make a plea, in which I am sure my miner friends join me, that when the Commission's report is published we shall have the roadways in the pit and the height made in such a way that there will be a guaranteed minimum of safety and freedom for the boys to move. It should not be necessary for workmen's inspectors to have to travel pits in order to find out defects in the working conditions, especially of the boys who are not articulate enough to make their


grievances felt. The Secretary for Mines should instruct his inspectors, when they find conditions in a mine not up to the standard which they believe is required, to exercise their powers to have those working places brought up to the maximum of safety. I want to draw attention to the rate of accidents, fatal and otherwise, in the Northern Division.

Mr. Speaker: Is not this Motion confined to young persons under the age of 16 years?

Mr. Taylor: That is the point with which I am going to deal—the accident rate for boys under 16 in the Northern Division as compared with the rest of the country. I should like to explain that I do not want to give the impression—far from it—that the managerial class and the owners in Northumberland are less humane than they are anywhere else. I have explained what I regard as the explanation of this high accident rate. Let me give the figures for the Northern Division for 1937. The figures for 1936 showed a substantial increase upon those for 1935, but in 1937 the accident rate, covering killed and injured, among those under 16, was 398 per 1,000 in the Northern Division, as against 281 per 1,000 for the whole of the country. I would point out that the 281 per 1,000 for the whole of the country includes the accidents in the Northern Division, and I make bold to say that if the figures for the Northern Division were not included with those for the whole of the country the number of killed and injured in the Northern Division would be found to be at least 50 per cent. higher than in the rest of the divisions in the country.
It is not enough that we should go on year after year talking sympathetically about this state of affairs. In the past men have roused the national conscience against factory conditions and against boy chimney sweeps, and we have to rouse the national conscience to the fact that we have practically 400 boys under 16 years of age being killed and mangled every year in the Northern Division of the mining areas. They are the flower of our race. Talk about boys not working in the pits. In the Northern Division boys are leaving the mines in large numbers to join the Navy and the Army on account of the terrible drive that is being made on them to maintain output in our pits. That state of affairs is not peculiar

to the mining industry, because the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Mines notes very much the same thing in regard to other young persons under 16. When they are making inquiries into accidents the inspectors find that this is what is usually said: "Who could have expected him to do such a silly thing?" Often the so-called silly thing is just the sort of thing a boy is likely to do when he is working where there is machinery or in other dangerous circumstances. Our boys are being asked to work to-day at the speed of the machine.
It is all very well to say that the boys should be trained, and I know very well that the Secretary for Mines did say on the last occasion on which we discussed the subject of classes in mines that not so much was being done in the northern division as he would like. I know of collieries in my own area which are doing their best as far as classes are concerned, but that is not enough to meet the situation. I say that when the boys go down, even if they have had training on the surface, they should be under an instructor, but I would not have that instructor a piecework man, I would not have his wages determined by the amount of coal that goes up. He should be a man on datal wages, whose earnings are not dependent upon the report which he puts into the colliery office at night of the amount of coal brought to the bank. I would have that man as a father with those children, and he should have power to tell a boy not to do an act to expedite output if it is a t the risk of injury to his life or limbs. We know the old saying that "Familiarity breeds contempt." I want to speak with due humility, and will not put it higher than to say that the miners are among the bravest of the people in this or any other land, and these children who are being injured are the sons of brave men and women and for that reason are probably taking risks which they ought not to take.
In conclusion, I want to say that it is the duty of the Secretary for Mines, when the Commission reports, to see that the Bill which is framed upon its report is drawn up to safeguard the boys in all mines and with not so much regard for profits. The Navy has been compared with the mines. The difference between the Navy and the mines is just that. The boys of to-day are the sons of men who in


times past have been lauded and applauded and then discarded, and now 400 per 1,000 of their sons are being maimed and killed, and the owners ask why the boys are not going into the pits. The reason is there—[Interruption.]—£15 is less than the price of a pony. When we send ponies into the pits we first train them on the surface. Then we send a horsekeeper down below to train them so that they will be able to take care of themselves. If we do that for the ponies surely we are not asking too much as miners when we claim that the same thing should be done for the boys.

9.55 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: As this is a private Member's night I do not want to speak for more than a minute or two, but it would not be courteous of me not to express some opinion upon this Motion. I should like to endorse all that has been said by hon. Members opposite as to the value of safety classes. The figures which were quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), and which came, in fact, out of a speech which I made in this House in July, in regard to the review which was being held in Yorkshire as to the comparative accident rate as between boys who had received badges as a result of safety classes and those who had not received badges and were not going to safety classes, can be taken a little further to-night. These are the only figures I intend to give the House to-night. In that speech I stated that we were making some reviews in other districts, and it has been done in Durham and Northumberland.
It may interest hon. Members to know that the general trend shown in the Yorkshire figures is shown to be the case in those other two districts also. If I may, I will give hon. Members the 1937 accident rate of death and injury per 1,000 boys employed against the comparative figures for Yorkshire. We find that in Northumberland the figure among badge-holders below ground was 270 and among non-badge-holders 531. Below ground in Durham the figure for badge-holders was 319 and for non-badge-holders 460. To complete the picture among workers on the surface in Northumberland, the figures for badge-holders was 90 and for non-badge-holders 153: In Durham, on the surface, the figure for

badge-holders was 144 and for non-badge-holders 160. That was a sample taken which covers in Durham some 80 per cent, of the boys under 16 years of age—which is what we are talking about—and about 65 per cent. of those employed in Northumberland. I think that we can definitely state that the figures for those three districts show that going to classes and getting a badge as a result of having passed the test does lead to a reduction in the accident rate for those who have attended. That is the view which was probably held, anyhow, and it is interesting to have it statistically confirmed.
What is the deduction? The deduction, as is inherent in the Motion and the Amendment, is that it is highly desirable that there should be a form of training. Some hon. Members have spoken as though there had been something remiss on my part in not having secured that all boys should be given training before they went into the pit. The answer to that is that there are no powers to that end in existing legislation. I wish there were. I have said so before and it is nothing new, but there are not. However, we come to the fundamental question which is the agreement in every quarter of the House that the figures for accidents to young persons in the pit under 16 years of age are deplorable. That, again, as hon. Gentlemen will know who have from time to time happened to read the speeches which I have made, is a point which I have stressed in many parts of the country. The difficulty is that there is no present power of regulation.
This Parliament, this House of Commons, has not entirely overlooked the case of the boys because through the instrumentality of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) last session we passed an Act to prevent the employment of boys under 16 years of age underground at night. We have tackled one part of the problem through his action, and, given time, we may have the opportunity of doing a very great deal more for the reason that, as several hon. Members have said, a Royal Commission has been sitting during practically the whole lifetime of this Parliament. I can, perhaps, remind hon. Gentlemen opopsite that it was at the desire of this Government and of this present Secretary for Mines that that Royal Commission was set up with the


object of initiating machinery for introducing legislation. Everybody connected with the industry knows that it would be quite impossible to introduce a measure altering—as it may well do—the whole basis of safety legislation without a very thorough investigation. I think that that is common ground, and we were, therefore, very glad to be able to advise the setting up of the Royal Commission. We are still more happy that the Commission have now signed their report. That report will be in the hands of hon. Members and of the country as a whole within a very few days. It is now at the Stationery Office, and we shall be able, I hope, to sit down during the Recess and study it.
This is entirely a private Member's day on which hon. Members can do as they please, but, looking at the Motion and at the Amendment, I notice that there are very welcome common factors in them. They both say that the House would welcome legislation, and they both say that there should be training before going underground. Both say that, having gone underground, some system of supervision should be set up. That seems to show a great deal of common agreement, and I should be very happy to think that the House could agree so far and accept the Amendment. If hon. Gentlemen ask me: "Why not recommend going further and accepting the Motion?" it is for the reason that the Motion is more specific and goes into more detail, first of all in specifying the actual time of supervision. It seems to me a matter of detail on which we should be not particularly wise to pledge ourselves now. It would at least be more courteous to the Royal Commission—one of whose members sits upon the Front Bench opposite—to wait, at any rate, just a week or two, especially after all their labours, before we make up our minds as to the form in which it should be done by putting it on record by a Resolution passed in this House.
It would also be more consonant with the usual practice of Parliament after having invited distinguished persons to investigate this problem. I do not know what they are going to say, and I am not aware of their recommendations on this point, but I have no shred of doubt that there will be some recommendations, for the reason that in the evidence-in-chief given on behalf of my Department

at the start of the Royal Commission's work this was one of the points to which the specific attention of the Royal Commissioners was directed. That is quite apart from the general consideration that this is one of the most important problems that has exercised the minds of so many people, including employers and workmen in the industry, for so long, I should indeed be surprised if there were no recommendation on the matter.
I ask the House whether hon. Members cannot agree to accept the common measure of agreement between the Motion and the Amendment and not to take a definitive view, as the Motion suggests, either with regard to age or with regard to the extent of the supervision. However, it is for the House to take its own decision, but that is the advice which I would myself take. It is true that all the experience which I have had in this problem leads me to the conclusion that, valuable as are the classes and as is the training now given, it may very well be that it should go further. It may be true to say that there should be more supervision to some extent. I think some consideration will have to be given, in choosing work, to the question of whether it is suitable to the age and the capabilities of the individual boy. I do not think that that ought to be left out of sight.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton—and this is my last word, having given such advice as it is right to give in my place—when he made a reference to the deaths of two boys whose names he gave and the circumstances in which they died. My replies in the House contained an expression of opinion that they were being employed on work which was unsuitable for boys. On reflection, I think that the hon. and gallant Member will see that a remark of that kind made from here is a pretty serious public reflection on whoever has been responsible for the allocation of work, and it is a reproof that I hope I may not often—if ever—have to give again. I should welcome it if I were endowed with powers to deal with the matter. It is for that reason that we set the machinery in train by setting up the Royal Commission, and, as I have said, it seems to me that, as it is only a matter of a few days, it would really be more consonant with the dignity of the House to await the Report and see exactly what


the Royal Commission recommend. If they do not recommend going as far as some people would like, there is nothing to prevent our going further. If they go too far, it may be that some people will take objection to that. I do not know. But I suggest that we should wait and see what they have to say. [Interruption.] The Report will be available within the next week or ten days. The Amendment carries out a good deal of what has been stated by hon. Members opposite, and I leave the matter to the good judgment of the House.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Whiteley: I think that every Member of the House, no matter to what party he or she belongs, will thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) for having brought this important matter before the House. My hon. and gallant Friend is not directly connected with the mining industry, but, having won a place in the Ballot, he thought that the question of the employment underground of boys under 16 ought to receive the attention of the House. I congratulate him on his presentation of the case to the House. It was excellently done, and I am only sorry that the terms of the Motion were not sufficiently wide to allow us to have the opportunity of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), who, as we all know gives us some very sound advice from time to time on matters of this kind. The Secretary for Mines has pointed out that he has no powers. This Motion has been put down with a view to giving him the powers which we believe he ought to have to deal with this very important subject. If we in this House think that there is something wrong, why should we wait for any kind of report? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out that there is very little difference between the Motion and the Amendment. The battle really is on the figure of 16—

Mr. Peake: Is the battle really on the question of the age of 16? If the Royal Commission recommend that the age should be 16 or any other figure, I shall gladly accept it. The battle really is as to whether we should put forward a definite figure before seeing the Report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Whiteley: My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) pointed out very clearly that the number of accidents to boys underground is so serious that, no matter what the Royal Commission may report, this House should take action. Why should we quibble about the age of 16? The school-leaving age is now 15, and it is only a matter of 12 months. I agree that the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) made some comparison with regard to accidents, but he must remember that in the old days, when coal was won by hand, there was not the speed and the machinery that we have to-day. The speed is terrible. In the old days they used to argue that seven years of age was all right for going into the mines, but surely the hon. Member and his friends are going to move with the times. To-day we say that 16 years is the lowest age at which boys should go underground into the mines. Underground you do not see things. The ordinary person does not realise the dangers underground. Above-ground you might be able to tell what kind of dangers you would have to meet, but nobody can lay down the kind of dangers that are to be met with underground and are likely to cause accidents to boys and men from time to time. Therefore I say that we have to move with the times. It is no use saying that 16 is not a suitable age, or that we should not place any figure on the records of this House before a Royal Commission says that i6 is the proper age. I am not concerned with what the Royal Commission says in that respect. I have made up my mind, not to-night but years ago, that 16 is the age below which we should not allow boys to go into the bowels of the earth.
The hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), in seconding the Amendment, said that there is not much difference between it and the Motion, but that the Motion goes into too much detail. Everything that we bring before this House has either too much detail or too little detail. But the Motion covers a general principle which can very readily be put into operation, to the advantage of the young life in our mining industry. I want to call the attention of the House to the important statement of the Inspecor of Mines for the Northern Division. My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth has already quoted the


figures, but, in the preface to his report, the inspector says,
It is desirable that new boy entrants into the industry should commence work on the surface, and, after a period of experience there, pass on to underground work.
It is true that he does not say at what age, but this is in his last report, and the school-leaving age has now been made 15, so that, if they have to spend some time on the surface, what better age can be fixed than 16? I do not think that Members of the House, when they realize the terrible percentage of accidents underground in the case of boys below the age of 16, ought to quibble about this Motion. Of the boys under 16 employed under-ground, 38 per cent. meet with accidents. That is a terrible toll.
I would remind the Secretary for Mines that he has some responsibility in this matter. His own inspector for the Northern Division points out very clearly in his report that a large number of these accidents could be prevented if there were more haulage space than there is at the present time in some of our mines. That is a very important statement, and one with which the Secretary for Mines can deal. He ought to see that it is dealt with as effectively as possible. There have been some complaints on the question of training boys before they reach the age of 16. I could go into far greater detail than even the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead would desire. You can lay it down how a boy shall be trained between the ages of 15 and 16; you can make arrangement that, when he reaches the age of 15½ for the last six months, before he definitely enters the mine underground, he shall have one day per week in the pit to learn pit sense, in order that he may become accustomed to it when he has to go there to work. We say that during the time they are on the surface boys should have a proper training in all kinds of safety principles, and the training ought to be on the halftime principle—say, four hours' working on the surface and four hours being instructed in safety principles.
The hon. Member for North Leeds rather took exception to my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion pointing out that there was a very low accident rate in the Navy. He said that in the Navy the discipline was strict and harsh. If he looks at the matter pro-

perly, he will see that the difference is that the standard of training is on a very high level in the Navy, and if we had it on the same high level without any harshness in the mines we could probably reach the same standard of freedom from accidents. We go further, and say that boys under the age of 16 should not be employed on any kind of machinery in mines and that until they reach the age of 21 they should not have any connection with conveyor faces. We are concerned, not as colliery owners but as trade union officials connected with the mining life of this country and we are prepared to work along these lines for the proper safety of the underground workers. When they are commencing on this machinery, when they come of age, these lads ought to be under proper supervision. There is no other industry which has the same accident rate for boys, because in other industries there is a sort of apprenticeship, and there is always supervision. If there is the will, much can be done in the way of obtaining supervision which would obviate many of the accidents. The safety committees that are now in operation in nearly all the coalfields ought to be given statutory power to deal with the question of accidents: to examine the causes and suggest means of preventing them.
Last Sunday the acting-president of the Mineworkers' Federation and I opened a "safety week" which is now in progress at Blaydon. I believe that is the kind of thing that will focus public attention on this matter. The local checkweighman, Mr. Stephenson, there is an artist in certain respects, and he himself has designed posters, additional to the posters provided by the mining institutes, and these have a tremendous effect on the public mind as soon as they are seen. He has put those posters around Blaydon, and there are also films being shown and lectures given. Mr. Rogers, one of His Majesty's inspectors, is giving lectures, pointing out to the men and lads the dangers that they ought to avoid, and Mr. Grise, who, I think, is connected with the Mining Research Department, has an article in the local Press, dealing with the problems of mining life and showing how people can assist in preventing accidents. So, on the workmen's side, we are doing all that is possible. The co-operative society are giving the use of a window for a display of gloves, helmets and other things connected with the question of safety. We


are trying to make these things as popular as we can.
There is a good deal to be said in favour of getting the boys and the men into closer contact and comradeship. One remembers that in the old days, if the boys did anything wrong, the older men used to come along and give them a switch and tell them what they thought about them. There was always a feeling of harshness and not of comradeship. There is a great deal in the fact that not only ought the men and boys to be urged to attend the special meetings on safety as organised by the safety committees, but there is this link which is necessary for the closer co-operation of the older workmen and boys which is brought about by these classes and meetings—you get the men and the boys together. They are engaged in a common purpose and it helps them in their every-day work. That is one of the important things that ought to be kept in mind.
We believe in the idea of a safety suggestion box to give an opportunity for men and boys working at the pit to make their contributions. In Blaydon, my own constituency, prizes are being given for the best essays on safety. The miners' lodge is giving 10s. as first prize, and 5s. as second and third prizes, and the owners are doing the same with a view to encouraging the lads and letting them see that somebody has a real interest in them. That sort of thing has a very great effect upon the minds of our young people. We believe too, that it should be possible to come to an arrangement whereby the pits could he made into districts, as many of them are, and that a prize should be given to the district with the lowest percentage of accidents. It would be another incentive for the co-operation of the men and boys in order to see, as far as possible, that all avoidable accidents were done away with. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds showed us a very nicely coloured book. Last Sunday night the manager of the Blaydon Colliery showed me a book that is published by the Ashington Coal Company, and a very wonderful book it is. It is illustrated right through and shows the kind of accident that is likely to occur and the best way to prevent it by using protective gloves and other things. This is the kind of thing that ought to be

brought into operation to a fuller extent than is the case at present.
I am sorry that we cannot accept the Amendment. I have here an agreement between the local coalowners and miners at Burnhope Colliery, where they have definitely agreed that no boy under 16 shall go below ground. We have agreed that for the first three months that a boy is below ground he shall be engaged near the shaft bottom, where he will he under supervision. Since the agreement came into operation there has been only one accident at that colliery to a boy under 16. We have made an effort to meet these grievances in the framing of our Motion, and it is impossible to accept the Amendment. We are not asking hon. Members opposite to go very far, but they are asking us to go a long way. Therefore the House should accept the Motion as it stands, because it is the only possible way of dealing with a position which is having such tragic effects upon the lives of our young people in the mines. I hope the House will face up to the situation.
The Secretary for Mines says that this is a private Members' day, and that we can do as we like. I trust that we shall face up to the realities of the Motion, in the interests of the mining industry; in the interests of the owners as much as in the interests of the workmen. I hope the Motion will be accepted, with a view to influencing the mind of the Minister, so that he will not be side-tracked when the report of the Royal Commission comes along, if it recommends something less than we are asking for in the Motion.

10.26 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: The Secretary for Mines is very persuasive, and we all know that no one has shown greater zeal and interest in the welfare of the miners than he has done. Therefore, I hate to do anything which he asks me not to do. I have, however, for years been trying to keep boys out of the mines until they are 16 years of age, and I have no doubt that the Royal Commission will advocate that. I do not see how they can do anything else, having regard to the appalling number of accidents to young persons in mines. I cannot vote against the Motion, for many reasons. The main reason is that for years I have asked questions in the House on this subject, although I have nothing to do with mining. It is


dreadful that in this enlightened age boys, children, between the ages of 14 and 16 should have to work underground. I am sure that in perhaps 10 or 20 years we shall all look back upon such employment as horrible. When we have regard to the high percentage of accidents I cannot understand why we do not take steps to get these children out of the mines.
We are a very curious nation. We get so upset about Basque children and refugee children, but I am much more upset about the 400 boys who, before our very eyes, are being killed and injured every year in our mines. Surely, it is the practical thing to take notice of that which we can amend, and this is one of the things that this House can and will amend. Apart from the humane point of view, anybody who has children knows that if there is ever a time when children need looking after it is then, between the ages of 14 and 16. Children of these ages—and they are children—need supervision, and they need to be taught obedience. We have been told about the discipline in the Navy. I should like to see discipline of children between the ages of 14 and 16. That is why I want them to stay on at school until they are 16. It is madness to let them out before that age.
If ever a generation needed discipline, it is this generation. We have surely passed beyond the period when we used to say, "Ask the children about it." On this matter of discipline, we know that in Russia if a child does wrong they do not punish the child but they punish the parent. That is a pretty good way of dealing with juvenile deliquency, because the fault is very often with the parent and not with the child. The period between 14 and 16 is the most crucial period in the development and the discipline of young boys, and I hope very much that the House will see to it that boys are not allowed to work underground before the age of 16. Some colliery owners have already stopped it. People who have not worked underground cannot really visualise the conditions. You have to go down a mine to see the dreadful conditions under which miners have to work.
From the point of view of mining itself it is much better that boys should not go down the mines at such an early age. It has been said that it is rather difficult to get people to enter the Mercantile Marine;

and can you wonder at it when you realise the appalling conditions which sometimes exist? If industry wants to get labour it must look after conditions and, therefore, purely from the material point of view it is much wiser not to let boys of 16 and under go down the mines. It is much better for them to be trained beforehand. I have been in the House so long and have taken part in the fight against juvenile labour so long that it is a real satisfaction to me to see how the country has come along during the last 20 years. There has been, however, a complete lack of imagination. I shall find it impossible for me to vote against the Motion. No matter what the recommendations of the Royal Commission may be on this point, I hope the Secretary for Mines will have the courage of his convictions. I know what his feelings are. If he were a dictator no boy under 16 years of age would be employed underground. Of course, we must pay great respect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but, after all, it is for this House to decide these matters.
As I have said, there seems to me to have been a complete lack of imagination on the part of this House and of the country. If we had passed an Act in 1918 stopping the employment of juveniles under 16 and opened nursery schools and continuation schools, industry during all these ensuing years would have got trained men. In this mechanical age it is madness to put children into industry before they are 16. A real diehard employer told me the other day that he was coming round to my view. He said that they did not want boys who had no control, mentally and morally, but that they wanted trained boys. If that is to be the case, there must be a provision for raising the school age to 16. I think the country is coming round to that point of view, and I hope the House of Commons will not stand in the way. If we pass the Motion it will not be a knock at the Government or even a hard blow at the Secretary for Mines, but it will show the country that the House of Commons is in desperate earnest to do what it can to put a stop to the appalling tragedy of these young lives.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Watson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who moved the Amendment, is not in his place, but I notice that the hon. and gal-


lant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), who seconded the Amendment, is present. I hope that before 11 o'clock the hon. Member for North Leeds and his friends will withdraw the Amendment and agree to the Motion. The Seconder of the Amendment referred to a scheme which has been put into operation by the Wemyss Coal Company, and the Mover of the Amendment referred to the scheme of the Fife Coal Company. Do they really ask hon. Members on these benches, who represent the miners, to be more reactionary than some of the colliery companies? Even in this Motion, we do not go as far as the scheme to which the hon. Member for North Leeds referred. Are hon. Members aware that the Fife Coal Company has made arrangements for some of the boys who would ordinarily go into the pits to go to the university? We do not go as far as that in our Motion.
The Mover of the Amendment said that the Motion was too specific, and he also quoted from a magazine which gave a report on the scheme of the Fife Coal Company. I have here the whole scheme as drawn up by Dr. William Reid of the Fife Coal Company, and in this document there is outlined the scheme not only for dealing with boys, but for dealing with adult education as far as mining is concerned, and also the various schemes which the hon. Member for North Leeds indicated for creating an interest in mining education. In this document it is stated that no boy is allowed to enter the mine until he is 16 years of age, except in certain circumstances, and I would like the House to understand what are those circumstances. The report says, incidentally, that it has been the company's regulation for many years now that no boy shall be given underground employment until he is 16 years of age, and exceptions to this regulation are permitted only if a boy is over 15½ years of age and is to work directly under the supervision of his father or some other near relative. I dare say that hon. Members on these benches would agree to a boy going into a mine at 15 years of age if he was going with his father or a near relative. These are the only exceptions which the Fife Coal Company allows. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for North Leeds whether he expects us on these benches to be more reactionary than the colliery companies?
Reference has been made to other companies. The Mover of the Motion referred to several companies which are engaged on vast educational work in connection with mining before boys are allowed to enter the mines. The Fife Coal Company will not allow a boy to enter the mine unless he has a safety certificate. More than once I have had the honour of presenting safety certificates to boys who have passed the necessary examination and who have had not one year but two years of mining education. The Fife Company under this scheme is, as I say, making provision for certain boys who have the capacity to go right on to the University. We would be very foolish indeed if we, representing the miners, were to ask for something less than the colliery companies themselves are actually giving at this moment.
I was astonished at the speech of the Secretary for Mines. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was in my constituency a week ago last Saturday, and, according to the report in the local newspaper, his principal object in going there was to inquire into this scheme of the Fife Coal Company, dealing with safety in mines and the position of boys under 16 in that connection. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was received by the high officials of the Fife Coal Company and I dare say he was well entertained. I also venture to say that he did not leave the offices of the company without having had a copy of this scheme presented to him. He knows what is in it. He knows about the provision to which I have already referred for giving certain boys a university education. Why he should stand at that Box and ask us to agree to the Amendment, when he knows that our Motion does not go as far as some of the colliery companies are already going, in the provision of education for these boys, is more than I can understand.
The county education committee has co-operated in the most cordial manner with both the Wemyss Company and the Fife Company in these educational arrangements, and I have to make this confession. When the county education committee started to give instruction in mining to boys the classes were never a success, but when the Fife Company came in along with the education committee, matters took on a different aspect.


In 1935–36 over 400 boys presented themselves at these classes and last year almost 1,000 boys took advantage of the educational facilities, jointly provided by the county education committee and the colliery companies in Fife. What can be done in Fife can be done in every other mining area in the country. We ought not to accept the advice of the Minister and agree to this Amendment. I hope that even at this hour the hon. Member for North Leeds will reconsider his decision and will not press his Amendment to a Division. But we must stand by our Motion. We dare not show that we are more reactionary than colliery companies. If there are some colliery companies that are not prepared to give the necessary instruction and education before boys enter their collieries, those companies ought to be compelled to come into line with the more progressive colliery companies and show to the people of this country, as the Fife Company and other colliery companies are showing, that accidents to boys can be prevented to a very considerable extent if proper instruction and education are given before the boys enter the mine.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Wragg: I am one of those who are in agreement with those Members of this House who would like to see the prohibition of boys under the age of 16 being employed in mines, but I do not think the proper way to arrive at that desideratum is by means of this Motion. There is a Royal Commission sitting, and surely it would be only courteous to wait and see what its recommendations are and then to act on those recommendations. The speeches from hon. Members opposite have shown a great deal of confusion and a tendency not to want to wait for the results of that Commission. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) said that the crux of the question was machinery, but if that is the case, how does he explain the fact that in Scotland, which is the most highly mechanised district in Great Britain, the accident rate for boys is only about half what it is in Durham and Northumberland? They are mechanised to a certain extent, but not to the same degree as in Scotland, and yet you have 387 out of every 1,000 boys employed in the Northern area getting some injury in 1936.
It is true that very few were killed, but nowadays the actual figures that are given are somewhat misleading, because employers, trade unionists, welfare workers, and in fact all concerned are much more insistent on seeing that the slightest injury is reported than used to be the case, and it is very important that it should be so, because often what may appear to be a very slight injury, the sort of injury that in the older days was not reported, may lead to something much more serious. Therefore, in looking at this question, we ought to be able to consider what proportion of these accidents are really serious and what proportion are merely such as to keep a boy away from work for a few days only. I cannot altogether agree that the accident rate is due mainly to machinery. To what was it due in the years before the War? We have had lots of arguments from the other side to the effect that men were safer then than they are to-day, but I have here the figures going back to 1875, and I find that there was hardly a year from 1875 to before the War when there were less than 130 per 1,000 of those employed in the mines damaged in some way or another. Since the War the figures in many cases have gone down to 100 per 1,000 men. Before the War there were years when the number was 260.7 per 1,000—that was the figure for 1880. If you come down to the year 1900 the figure falls to 128, then it fluctuates: in 1910 it was 168 per 1,000; but you never had before the War any single year when the rate was under 100 persons per 1,000 employed.
The figures, deplorable as they are, with regard to young persons, certainly show that safety in mines is increasing. There is every reason why we should wait for the findings of the Royal Commission and see if they can inform us what are the reasons for this large number of accidents among the boys employed in the mines. Various reasons have been given. We have been told that piecework is responsible. Well, there was piecework before the War, there was piecework 40 or 50 years ago, and there is piecework now, but accidents were higher before the War. I hold that the fall in the rate of accidents is due to the care that is taken to-day by everyone engaged in the mining industry. Everybody wants to reduce the number of accidents in every industry, not only


in the mines, and they are being reduced; and there is every bit as much desire on this side of the House as on the other side to see that all possible steps are taken to reduce the number. I do not know why they do these things so well in Scotland, compared with other parts of the country, but it does seem strange that the rate should be only 213 per 1,000, while in Northumberland and Durham it is 387 per 1,000 boys employed between the ages of 14 and 16.
I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) in his general remarks as to the ways in which accidents may be considerably reduced. To my mind there is a lot of nonsense talked about what could be done. Some people say that you should stow the vacant spaces in your mine with rubbish and keep your small coal down. That might be all right for some pits, but in some other pits it might be a cause of danger from fire. All these things have to be considered. Therefore, would it not be really wise for the House to wait till the findings of the Royal Commission are available and then take what action is thought fit, rather than prejudge the issue at this moment?

Mr. James Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman really say it is nonsense to suggest that the vacant spaces should be tightly stowed?

Mr. Wragg: It all depends on the mines. I say it is nonsense to say that the stowing of rubbish in the mines will necessarily prevent a lot of accidents. It may be done in some cases, but to say it is a panacea for accidents is nonsense. I, therefore, support the Amendment that we should wait for the findings of the Royal Commission and take action on their lines. Not to do so would be to prejudice

the issue, and would not be courteous to the Royal Commission.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I have no connection with mining, but I agree wholeheartedly with the Motion. On the other hand, I agree with the Amendment, and I find myself somewhat in a predicament. The Royal Commission has been sitting, however, and it had the power to call for evidence which was given by experts. I would remind hon. Members that it was not a Conservative or a coalowners' commission, but a truly representative commission. In view of the fact that their report is due to be published within Io days, we ought to wait to hear what they have to say. I do not know why industries wait for legislation before they introduce measures which they know have public support throughout the country, and which they know are wise and good measures for the safety of the mine workers. I cannot understand why there are some people responsible in certain parts of the coal industry who have not introduced this much-needed reform many months ago. I introduced a Bill some time ago which showed the trend of public opinion and it passed through the House eventually, without a Division. Subsequently, there was a letter to the "Times," and I feel that if any criticism is due to anybody it is due to those who are responsible for running the industry and do not realise that this reform is much needed from the points of view of both safety and humanity. I am sorry that they have not seen fit to introduce it before legislation was necessary.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 135.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
11.0 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Benson, G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Bird, Sir R. B.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Day, H.


Adamson, W. M.
Buchanan, G.
Dobbie, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Burke, W. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Charleton, H. C.
Ede J. C.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Chater, D.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cluse, W. S.
Frankel, D.


Banfield, J. W.
Cocks, F. S.
Gallacher, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Collindridge, F.
Gardner, B. W.


Barr, J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Garro Jones, G. M.


Batey, J.
Daggar, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Bellenger, F. J.
Dalton, H.
Grenfall, D. R.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)




Griffiths, J. (Llanely)
Lunn, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Groves, T. E.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Simpson, F. B.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hardie, Agnes
MacLaren, A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Maclean, N.
Sorensen, R. W.


Henderson, A. (Kingawinford)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Stephen, C.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mathers, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Henderson, T. (Tradoston)
Milner, Major J.
Stokes, R. R.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Montague, F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hollins, A.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Tinker, J. J.


Hopkin, D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Walkden, A. G.


John, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Parker, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parkinson, J. A.
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pearson, A.
Westwood, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Kirby, B. V.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Kirkwood, D.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Lathan, G.
Ridley,
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Lawson, J. J.
Riley, B.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Leach, W.
Ritson, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Leonard, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)



Leslie, J. R.
Sexton, T. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, E.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher and




Mr. R. J. Taylor.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Balniel, Lord
Hambro, A. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)
Pilkington, R.


Bossom, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boulton, W. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Procter, Major H. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonal A. P.
Radford, E. A.


Brass, Sir W.
Hepworth, J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsbotham, H.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Holdsworth, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Castloreagh, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rowlands, G.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hutchinson, G. C.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Salt, E. W


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shaw, Major P S. (Wavertree)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Crossley, A. C.
Kimball, L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spens, W. P.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


De Chair, S. S.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sutcliffe, H.


Denville, Alfred
Leech, Sir J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lees-Jones, J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Duggan, H. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Touche, G. C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Liddall, W. S.
Turton, R. H.


Eckersley, P. T.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lloyd, G. W.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Emery, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Errington, E.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Fleming, E. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wlse, A. R.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Markham, S. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wood, Hon. C I. C.


Gluckstein, L. H.
May haw, Lt.-Col. J.
Wragg, H.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moreing, A. C.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Munro, P.



Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nall, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Peake and Colonel Clarke.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 117.

Division No.23.]
AYES
[11.9 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Connor, Sir Terenee. J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Balniel, Lord
Hambro, A. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pilkington, R.


Bossom, A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boulton, W. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Procter, Major H. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Radford. E. A.


Brass, Sir W.
Hepworth, J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsbotham, H.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Holdsworth, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hask., N.)
Rowlands, G.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hutchinson, G C.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Salt, E. W.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)


Crossley, A. C.
Kimball, L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spans, W. P.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


De Chair, S. S.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Denville, Alfred
Leech, Sir J. W.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lees-Jones, J.
Touche, G. C.


Duggan, H. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Turton, R. H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Liddall, W. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eckersley P. T.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lloyd, G. W.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Emery, J. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Errington, E.
McKie, J. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Wise, A. R.


Fleming, E. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Markham, S. F.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wragg, H.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moreing, A. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry



Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Munro, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nall, Sir J.
Mr. Peake and Colonel Clarke.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gardner, B. W.
McGhee, H. G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Garro Jones, G. M.
MacLaren, A.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Maclean, N.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
MacNeill Weir, L.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mathers, G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Milner, Major J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Montague, F.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Barr, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Parker, J.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parkinson, J. A.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pearson, A.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Price, M. P.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pritt, D. N.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Dagger, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton. T. M.


Dalton, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dobbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Frankel, D.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stokes, R. R.


Gallacher, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith







Tinker, J. J.
Westwood, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Walkden, A. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Watkins, F. C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)



Watson, W. McL.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Welsh, J. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher and




Mr. R. J. Taylor.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.